The BBC radio programme Sunday had segments on both the Hereford case and the Radio talk.
Penal substitution. Start here and go forward here 24.5 minutes. Lasts about 7 minutes. No bishops.
Employment discrimination. Same file, immediately after the above. Or go forward from the beginning 31.5 minutes.Also lasts about 7 minutes. Still no bishops.
Better URLs later in the week.
3 CommentsUpdated Friday evening
The Times Marcus Leroux Crucifixion ‘makes God into a psychopath’.
Telegraph Jonathan Petre Crucifixion makes God seem like a psychopath, says cleric.
The Guardian’s correspondent Stephen Bates wrote a piece for the newspaper which didn’t get printed. You can read it below. Maybe TA readers would like to suggest what headline the newspaper should have used…
Update Friday evening A revised version of this article has now been published at Comment is Free under the title To forgive is divine.
And Damian Thompson of the Telegraph has blogged The sound bite that sunk its teeth in.
Update Friday morning
William Crawley has helpfully linked to the two-page BBC Religion discussion of Theories of the Atonement.
The BBC Radio 4 series Lent Talks has had six well-known figures reflect on the story of Jesus’ ministry and Passion from the perspective of their own personal and professional experience. The BBC web page, with all the audio and text files is here.
Tonight, the talk by Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans “rejects the idea of a God of wrath” to quote the BBC blurb.
The full text of the talk can now be read here.
This talk has been the subject of a surprising amount of pre-publicity, starting with a report in the Sunday Telegraph with a ridiculously misleading headline, Easter message: Christ did not die for sin.
Giles Fraser writing today on Comment is Free in an article titled Cross purposes says:
Easter is a time for stringing up the innocent. And this year, once again, the sacrificial victim is the dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John. Of course, we all know the reason why he’s hated by conservatives in the church. No, not because he is gay, but because he’s honest. And it’s this same honesty that has got him in trouble again. For, once again, what he has been saying is nothing other than a truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible. It turns Christianity into “cosmic child abuse”.
The technical theological term for this nasty perversion of the Easter story is penal substitution…
The topic was also discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning:
0735 A senior clergymen is afraid that some Christian teaching suggests God is a psychopath.
Ekklesia had Evangelical Bishops attack Jeffrey John talk (without reading it):
75 CommentsTwo junior evangelical bishops have attacked a Lent talk to be given tonight on BBC’s Radio 4 by Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans cathedral, without reading it.
In a statement released today from the evangelical Spring Harvest event, the Rt Revd Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes and the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willsden, said Jeffrey John had “got it wrong”.
However, both bishops later told Ekklesia that they had yet to read the 2,200 word transcript of the talk.
However, apparently contradicting several of the claims made by the bishops, in the transcript obtained by Ekklesia in advance of the broadcast tonight, Jeffrey John states: “On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid.”
When asked whether the bishops would issue a correction Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willsden declined. He said: “As the BBC have not made a transcript available, we have had to comment on the material that is available.”
He said that he had read an article in the Sunday Telegraph about it, and listened to a discussion on Radio 4 this morning about it…
Affirming Catholicism press release 3 April, 2007
Lesbian and gay Christians: Church must practice respect it teaches
Affirming Catholicism, the progressive Anglican Organisation, has welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent statement on the place of lesbian and gay people in the Anglican Church and called on him to champion the cause of gay people inside the Church as well as arguing for their fair treatment in civil society. Dr Williams statement came after the publication of a report on the ‘listening process’ which Anglican Churches world-wide pledged themselves to engage in since at least 1978 when the Lambeth Conference – the 10 yearly gathering of Anglican Bishops – called for a ‘deep and dispassionate study’ of homosexuality. In his response the Archbishop says that Anglicans are ‘to manifest a credible respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people.’ As well as condemning repressive legislation and hate crimes he calls for the Church to be a ‘safe space where people may be honest and where they may be confident that they will have their human dignity respected.’ The Chair of the Executive Committee of Affirming Catholicism, the Rev’d Dr Barry Norris said:
We’re delighted that the Archbishop has so unequivocally affirmed the place of lesbian and gay people in society and in the Church. However there are still parts of the Communion which have not yet openly acknowledged the presence of homosexual people, still less made a safe and welcoming place for them. At the same time North American Churches are being censured for engaging in precisely the sort of process the Archbishop and successive Lambeth Conferences have called for. We very much hope that the Archbishop will build on this statement over the coming months by challenging prejudice inside and outside the Church, and helping lesbian and gay voices to be heard.
Affirming Catholicism has for a long time backed moves to include lesbian and gay Christians fully into the life of the Church, including the ordained ministry. The organisation has also maintained that different understandings of what the Bible says on the issue need not divide the Church and has commended respectful dialogue with those who continue to hold a conservative position. The Rev’d Nerissa Jones, Chair of Trustees of the organisation said:
The listening process demands great respect, courtesy and patience from all of us who are trying to build bridges and learn to take account of others’ points of view. This sort of approach is core to the way Affirming Catholicism’s approach. Even if we have made mistakes, we will continue to engage as individuals and as a group, and we will play our part in creating safe and respectful places of encounter and dialogue.
Affirming Catholicism’s next national conference is due to take place in Canterbury in July next year and will consider in detail how Christians can understand the bible in contemporary society. The final report of the Communion’s listening process is due to be made a few weeks later at the next Lambeth Conference also in July in Canterbury.
5 CommentsUpdated Monday
The Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis is to appear before an employment tribunal in Cardiff on Wednesday, in a case involving the Employment Equality Regulations (Sexual Orientation) 2003.
Reports today in both the Observer Bishop blocks gay youth worker’s job by Anushka Asthana and in the Sunday Telegraph Gay youth worker accuses bishop of discrimination after failing to get job by Jonathan Wynne-Jones.
Update
The BBC is now also carrying this story: Gay man takes bishop to tribunal.
Update Monday
The Mail on Sunday had Bishop accused of blocking gay man’s job will face a tribunal by Tom Kelly.
Western Daily Press BISHOP BANNED JOB APPLICANT WHO WAS GAY.
44 CommentsPress release from Affirming Catholicism 30 March 2007
Women bishops: the limits of dissent
Affirming Catholicism has made a formal submission to a Church of England group charged with drawing up the legislation that will enable women to become bishops. In its submission, Affirming Catholicism argues that women bishops should have the same authority and status as their male counter-parts and that pastoral provision can be made for many but not all of the opponents of the move. The legislative drafting group was created by the Church’s governing body, the General Synod, after a debate in July 2006 when the great majority of its members backed a motion in favour of women bishops, although the question of how to deal with opponents was left unresolved.
The Rev’d Jonathan Clark, who chaired the Affirming Catholicism working party, said:
The General Synod has asked the legislative drafting group to produce proposals which will require all members of the Church to accept the fact of women bishops but which affirms that it is possible to dissent from that decision while still remaining loyal Anglicans. We argue that the clear implication of this tough brief is that pastoral arrangements can be put in place for those who regret or disagree with the decision to admit women to the episcopate but not for those who want to insulate themselves from the rest of the Church by living as though women had never been ordained.
The debate about women’s ordination as bishops has been high on the agenda of the General Synod over the last three years, with no set of proposals gaining the full support of its members. Canon Nerissa Jones, MBE, Chair of Trustees of Affirming Catholicism, said:
The Church has been grappling with the ordination of women for a generation now and many many people are keen to see it at last resolved. Although only a minority of parishes and priests oppose the ordination of women as bishops, we are arguing for generous and secure pastoral provision to be made for them, provided that it does not put women who are bishops on a lesser footing than their male colleagues or create a church within a church. We believe our proposals strike the right balance between clarity and charity.
The legislative drafting group is due to meet in the middle of April to consider the submissions it has received from individuals and groups and is expected to make a progress report to Synod when it meets in July, although it is as yet unclear when the final vote on legislation will take place.
To read the full text of the submission, click here (.doc format)
6 CommentsUpdated Friday 30 March
In last week’s Church Times Paul Bickley of Theos wrote an article about the bishops and the House of Lords, under the title Fewer Lords Spiritual, or none at all. In it he argues convincingly that:
The game is almost up for the bishops in the Lords. The only option for them is to put forward a counter-proposal of their own, with a radically reduced number of bishops to be part of a potential appointed element of a reformed chamber. They have not done so in the Lords’ debates on the subject this week. But five, six — even two — bishops, appointed on the basis of ability and capacity, and released from some diocesan responsibilities, could ensure that the national Church could maintain its excellent work in a reformed second chamber.
This article follows on from the Theos report Coming off the bench: The past, present and future of religious representation in the House of Lords which was published in February and can be downloaded from here. At the time, Bill Bowder reported on it: Report finds bishops too political.
This week’s Church Times has letters in response to the article, including from Frank Field and Colin Buchanan.
Update These letters are now available, see If the bishops want a future in the Lords, they need to work on it.
Frank Field writes:
…The impression given by the bishops is like that of their predecessors sitting around, sharpening their quills, and waiting for Prime Minister Peel to come and begin ecclesiastical-committee meetings. This time round they are simply awaiting reform.
The House of Bishops needs to become proactive and introduce its own Bill reforming the place of the Lords Spiritual in the Upper House. But to do this the bishops need to have thought through what is their place in a “modernised” Second Chamber.
Despite the increase in attendance of bishops now, compared with the Thatcher era, most bishops who have places in the Lords do little to justify their existence…
And Colin Buchanan says:
14 Comments…I wonder whether a few one-line shafts of the obvious would help?
First, if there were 16 bishops taking their seats on the present pecking-order basis, all but the top five would get about nine months’ membership of the House before retirement.
Second, if there were the Bickley solution of “six, five — even two — bishops appointed on the basis of ability . . . and released from some diocesan responsibilities”, then (a) who would appoint them? (b) what would count as “ability”? and © what diocese would want them in absentia?
Third, surely the issue of “100 per cent elected” should be addressed in its own right, not simply on the grounds that it unseats bishops?
Fourth, when will anyone start to couple a changed future for bishops in the Lords with an end of Downing Street’s final say in their appointment as bishops, indefensibly staked, as it is, upon the current expectation of their proceeding to the Lords?
There were three bishops present and voting last night, and one retired English bishop.
Lord Harries voted against the amendment.
The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham each spoke for, and voted for the amendment.
Lord Eames also voted for the amendment.
You can read their speeches here (in chronological order, scroll down as necessary):
Ekklesia has commented on this aspect of the debate: Bishops reject calls to vote on Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Bishop’s vote over Sexual Orientation Regulations.
The Press Association issued Kelly welcomes gay equality law
Zefrog has Sexual Orientation Regulations – Lords Vote and What the Christian Right Doesn’t Want You to See Anymore.
The Public Whip analyses the Lords voting in detail here.
10 CommentsThis project was pre-announced some time ago.
Lambeth Palace has now announced the use of YouTube by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Read the press release Archbishops online reflection – ‘Slavery still with us’.
This has been reported in The Times by Ruth Gledhill as Archbishop of Canterbury makes YouTube debut, and is discussed further on her blog at Archbishop goes live on YouTube.
Dave Walker has links to numerous related sites at Making our mark.
When this project was first announced, wannabepriest was concerned about whether this was a good idea. He now has Credit where credit is due…
What do other people think about it now?
3 CommentsPress Release
February 20, 2007
Meeting of Primates in Tanzania
We acknowledge the huge complexity of the issues which the Primates of the Communion brought to Tanzania and the fears and expectations which surrounded the meeting.
In that context we congratulate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow Primates on their achievement of a united communiqué. We are acutely aware that compromises have been made by all sides. This is a sign of the great generosity of those present at the meeting.
There is a cost to discipleship and sometimes it is high. The cost demanded of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is immense, and has been for generations. The continuing failure of the Communion to address the pastoral needs and receive the ministerial gifts and insights of the whole community is part of that cost.
The heart of the Gospel for us is not about sexuality. The continuing arguments are damaging the Church’s mission and undermining the Gospel. Anglicanism has in its DNA the ability to embrace diversity. For example we recognise diversity over the nature of the Sacraments, in worship, and in the interpretation of scripture.
Why then are parts of the church so obsessed by the single issue of homosexuality? It is not a defining issue nor can it be the benchmark of orthodoxy.
We are pleased that the ‘listening process’ called for by the Windsor Report is receiving serious attention from the Primates, as is the consideration of a common hermeneutical method. But the listening process must not be a sop to lesbian and gay people and their supporters. It cannot be undertaken without those involved being open to the possibility of change. So far there is little evidence of that openness.
As the debate becomes more disconnected from the reality of everyday life of those we serve, it is increasingly clear that TEC is becoming a scapegoat. For example, the demand for TEC to forswear same sex blessings ignores the reality that across the Church of England such blessings are happening right across the country as parish priests respond to the pastoral needs of their community.
We acknowledge the pain experienced on all sides and we would not wish to see those who disagree with us being driven from the church. If that happened all of us would be the poorer. Therefore we commit ourselves as members of an inclusive church to continue the process of dialogue and relationship to which the Primates have called us.
Overshadowed by the rest of the report, the Primates recommitted themselves to the Millennium Development Goals. It is clear to us that in a world riven by injustice and poverty we should be uniting in raising our voices to ensure that those goals are met so that the gospel can be proclaimed afresh for a new generation.
For further information and to sign up as a supporter of InclusiveChurch’s aims, go to http://www.inclusivechurch.net
Author: Giles Goddard (Chair) on behalf of the InclusiveChurch Executive
office@inclusivechurch.net
07762 373 674
The InclusiveChurch/Fulcrum joint project continues. There are now several letters from each contributor posted. You can see links to all of them, at either InclusiveChurch or at Fulcrum.
The latest letter from Giles Goddard starts here. (I’m sure it will be on Fulcrum as well, quite soon.)
11 CommentsRead about this in the Guardian today, University to ban gay marriages on campus by Jessica Shepherd.
The heads of a university closely aligned to the Church of England plan to ban civil partnership ceremonies on campus. The vice-chancellor, chair of governors and deputy pro-chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church University argue that the church’s position on homosexuality makes it wrong to conduct lesbian and gay “marriages” on the university’s premises…
…Canterbury Christ Church currently offers its premises for civil marriages at its campuses in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. From spring 2007, it is likely that new legislation will forbid institutions licensed for civil marriage ceremonies to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. There is unlikely to be a clause allowing them to opt out on religious grounds…
Earlier reports from the Guardian here, and from the BBC here.
34 CommentsThe Church of England has been reviewing the conditions of service of its clergy. General Synod has received and debated two reports and an implementation group has been set up to put the reports’ proposals into effect. This will involve legislation and a draft measure will be introduced when General Synod meets at the end of this month. This is scheduled for debate on Tuesday 27 February.
The Church of England has added a section to its website about the legislation: The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Legislation. As well as links to the two reports and other material there is a very useful set of frequently asked questions which are well worth reading.
3 CommentsThe House of Bishops of the Church of England has indicated that it will move a substantial amendment to each of the two Private Members Motions scheduled for debate on Wednesday 28 February.
LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Revd Mary Gilbert (Lichfield) to move:
700 ‘That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire; and, bearing in mind this diversity,
(a) agree that a homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life;
(b) invite parish and cathedral congregations to welcome and affirm lesbian and gay Christians, lay and ordained, valuing their contribution at every level of the Church; and
(c) urge every parish to ensure a climate of sufficient acceptance and safety to enable the experience of lesbian and gay people to be heard, as successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978 (resolution 10), 1988 (resolution 64), and 1998 (resolution 1.10) have requested.’
124 Signatures (February 2006)
ITEM 12 LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Bishop of Gloucester to move:
Leave out all words after “this Synod” and insert the words:
“(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
(b) recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978: 10; 1988: 64; 1998: 1.10); and
(c) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church.”
The background note issued by the House of Bishops concludes:
The House of Bishops does not believe that it would be in the interests of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion for the Synod to attempt to pass a motion that was either so ambiguous as to cause confusion and misunderstanding or so clear-cut as to exacerbate the polarisation that already exists. A member of the House will, therefore, be moving on behalf of the House a substantial amendment which, if carried, would enable the Synod to make a positive statement without creating fresh divisions.
Details of the second PMM are below the fold.
29 CommentsPaul Roberts has published a series of articles on his own blog under these headings
Three posts on clergy life (1) – clergy stress
Three posts on clergy life (2) – “If you meet George Herbert on the road, kill him”
Three posts on clergy life (3) – visiting
Three posts on clergy life – coda – you get the priests you plan for
In today’s Church Times Mark Hill, Chancellor of the diocese of Chichester and the diocese in Europe, writes that the Civil Partnership Act allows more government control of the Church.
The delicate constitutional relationship between the Established Church and the state has been dealt a body blow by the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or the nature of marriage. Indeed, the media furore about gender orientation and its implications for Anglican unity has probably served to obfuscate an assault on the self-governance of the Church of England, which has been surreptitiously effected by two obscure sections in the Act…
Read Uncivil partnership with the state?
26 CommentsI do not know what exact question was asked, but the following was, according to a Lambeth Palace press release, the reply made by Rowan Williams:
In response to a question on the UK Government announcement on the implementation of Sexual Orientation Regulations:
“I’ll wait to see I think what the period of negotiation that lies ahead will bring, to see whether the concerns of the Catholic Church has raised are going to be addressed. But what we’d most want to do is to disentangle two things. There’s a particular issue on which the Catholic church has taken a stand, as other Christians have; and there’s a general issue about the rights of the state and the rights of conscience especially in voluntary bodies. Now that second question is one that, I think, is by no means restricted to this issue. And I think it’s not going to go away, so I would like to see some more serious debate now about that particular question – what are the limits, if there are limits, to the State’s power to control and determine the actions of voluntary bodies within it, in pursuit of what are quite proper goals of non-discrimination. So I hope there’ll be a debate about that.”
More on this later, maybe.
23 CommentsThe Church of England has published the text of a letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair.
Dear Prime Minister,
The Church of England, along with others in the voluntary sector, including other churches and faith communities, have been in discussion with the government for some time over what has become known as the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Those discussions have been conducted in good faith, in mutual respect and with an appropriate level of confidence on all sides.
Last week that changed. Speculation about splits within government, fuelled by public comment from government ministers, appears to have created an atmosphere that threatens to polarise opinions. This does no justice to any of those whose interests are at stake, not least vulnerable children whose life chances could be adversely, and possibly irrevocably, affected by the overriding of reasoned discussion and proper negotiation in an atmosphere of mistrust and political expediency.
The one thing on which all seem able to agree is that these are serious matters requiring the most careful consideration. There is a great deal to gain. It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that much could also be lost, as the letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor makes clear.
Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience. In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.
The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.
On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences alongside other considerations contributing to the common good, such as social need or human rights – the right, for example, of some doctors not to perform abortions, even though employed by the National Health Service.
It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation. This is hardly evidence of a balanced and reasonable public debate.
As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected. It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest. And that conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.
Yours faithfully,
Most Rev and Rt Hon Rowan Williams
Archbishop of CanterburyMost Rev and Rt Hon John Sentamu
Archbishop of York
Reference is made above to a letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. That letter can be read here.
Press coverage
Earlier reports from the Telegraph Jonathan Petre Gay laws would force closures says Cardinal and A bare fist fight.
Later reports from The Times Ruth Gledhill and Greg Hurst Anglicans back right to deny gay adoption and Tony Blair: torn between two loves.
49 CommentsJonathan Wynne-Jones has had two stories in the Sunday Telegraph lately on this:
14 Jan For YouTube, read PewTube
21 Jan Hug somebody for Lent
The latter was triggered by a Church of England official press release titled: Lent – now str8 2 ur fone about the Love Life Live Lent campaign. The associated website is not what you might expect, but rather is www.livelent.net.
Both these projects are subjected to some serious criticism, first by Dave Green at wannabepriest under the title Oi, Williams…. NOOOO! and then by Dave Walker at The Cartoon Blog. I agree with their comments. What do TA readers think?
10 CommentsA new joint project of Fulcrum and Inclusive Church has just started. Titled Goddard2Goddard it has as a strapline Waiting for Goddards: Corresponding Theologies.
Who are we?
Andrew Goddard is Tutor in Christian Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Giles Goddard is Rector of St Peter’s Church, Walworth, South London. Giles is also Chair of Inclusive Church while Andrew is on the Leadership Team of Fulcrum and a scholar of the Anglican Communion Institute.
What are we doing?
We agreed just before Christmas to correspond with each other over the next few months on matters relating to the challenges facing the Anglican Communion and the Church of England and to publish our exchanges online. The correspondence will appear on both the Fulcrum and Inclusive Church sites although both of us are writing in a personal capacity. We do this knowing we initially come with different perspectives on many of the major presenting issues (the nature of Anglicanism, life in communion, the Windsor Report, Lambeth I.10 on sexual ethics etc) and eager to explore these together.
Why are we doing this?
The project is explained further both here and here.The initial pair of letters can be read on either site:
29 CommentsFurther letters will be posted both here and here.
The Fulcrum forum has a thread for discussion which you can read here.