Thinking Anglicans

LLF: report of a meeting at Lambeth Palace

Updated

Colin Coward has published this report of a meeting on Friday 3 November at Lambeth Palace Library: The Archbishop of Canterbury meets thirty four representatives of progressive organisations

On Friday afternoon, forty one people gathered forming a huge rectangle in the room on the top floor of the Lambeth Palace library. Thirty four were representatives of progressive organisations and networks seeking the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England.

I think the meeting represents a turning point in the decades-long movement in the Church of England towards achieving the full and equal inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in our church – but although progress may now be made, the future is still very uncertain….

Helen King has published another report of the same meeting: Going to the top: meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury

…When Friday’s meeting was announced, at short notice, I heard from several stakeholders that they weren’t inclined to drag themselves into London yet again for what could well be a pointless meeting. We have bitter experience of being asked at these meetings to react to various scenarios, only for an entirely different scenario to be the one that is decided upon. Eventually they concluded that they may as well go; we’re nothing if not resilient. So, there we were. Again. Only, this time, all in the same room, rather than meeting the LLF team in sub-groups (Evangelical inclusives, Catholic inclusives, etc)…

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

144 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeremy Pemberton
Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

I am grateful to Colin for this report. Whatever criticisms I may have of Justin Welby, I am not a bit surprised that he reacted as he did. He is under immense pressure: from a large group of progressive bishops who want to get on with things, to a smaller group of traditionalists, from the conservative groupings he had already seen that morning, who we can be sure will have piled on the guilt to one they have seen as their own, to all these progressives telling him how angry and hurt they are, and with conflicting messages coming at… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

After everything you have been through, I love you for your human compassion.

Rowland
Rowland
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

He would do far better to have separate provinces. His insistence on walking together is creating the stress.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Rowland
8 months ago

I need to clarify that I am not the author of this comment (I’m joining Martin Sewell in clarifying that we always use our full names on TA).

Rowland p
Rowland p
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
8 months ago

Apologies. Did not intend to cause confusion.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Rowland p
8 months ago

Apologies not necessary! There’s no monopoly in a name. Only clarification!

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

I agree re: Welby’s personal situation. Trying to keep the peace on all sides, and working for unachievable goals will exact an enormous price. Everyone has personal deficits; he has his. But the matter at hand has only one likely outcome. Some form of disentanglement.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

While I don’t like to see anyone stressed, this situation was avoidable. If seven years ago he had recommended blessings of same sex couples this would all have been over. Indeed, his prevarication, which was on display again in this meeting, is just prolonging the stress for him and many others. It’s time for him to lead and implement the radical new Christian inclusion he promised.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Kate Keates
8 months ago

It was also Archbishop Welby who asked Parliament for the Locks. If same sex marriage in church had been mandated by Parliament it would not have become a divisive matter in the Church. It hasn’t in Scandinavia. The division is caused because to many church people it has become an essential question of doctrine rather than a simple matter of parishioners’ rights.

Philip Groves
Philip Groves
Reply to  T Pott
8 months ago

Although he was Archbishop when the act was finally passed, I believe the negotiations between Church and state had gone on prior to him becoming Archbishop. My understanding is that the quadruple lock was hammered out by Church House during 2012. Cameron was delighted, his motive for pushing for same-sex marriage was to distance himself from the C of E following the disastrous failure to pass legislation for women bishops. ‘Get with the programme’ were his words. Can you imagine the Conservative Party was on the progressive side of the culture wars.

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Kate Keates
8 months ago

There is much in this. Had the Church agreed to permit blessings of Civil Partnerships ( by the willing) we would not have the complication of
“ re-defining marriage” and the heat might have gone out of the controversy. I did argue for that at the time.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

It is not simply Justin’s choice to have separate Provinces. And even if he proposed such a thing now, and supposing his proposal found agreement all around the CofE – which it would not – he would be long gone by the time it came to being. He has at most only just about 2 years left in office. His hope now is clearly that no big decisions will be made before he goes. And that’s what is most likely given the proposals coming to this next General Synod.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

No one said it was. I was speaking of the stress of ‘good disagreement’ on him personally, and for that matter, all involved. I spoke of disentanglement. Not of the agent or means of that.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

Well one needs to know what the agent or means are for the word disentanglement to have any meaning at all. But please see Jeremy Pemberton’s extremely helpful.comment below.
It was Rowland who spoke of a separate Province and I was responding to that point. A separate Province wasn’t acceptable in the case of women in the episcopate. It won’t be acceptable in this case either. It’s a non starter. So other ideas about what disentanglement means would be welcome.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

“So other ideas about what disentanglement means would be welcome.”

I agree, and would add: they are indispensable. The status quo is unworkable. Or to use the helpful comment’s language above “holding things together is not achievable.”

The hardest thing is often to admit the situation, as it stands, is unworkable.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

The problem Christopher is that neither you nor anyone else has – so far – suggested any workable example of ‘disentaglement’. The proposed ‘Covenant’ failed to find sufficient support in the CofE as you know, so that it is not a viable option. And any explorations of a separate Province have also failed to find support. So it seems we need something rather different from either of those models.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

I thought your comment meant that you agreed that disentanglement was necessary. I agree.

I am not a member of the CofE.

What I have witnessed is the disentangling in the context of the US, and it was costly, with losses on all sides.

So I applaud your call for proposals. May they arise. They are necessary if you want to avoid a long(er) and difficult season.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

Christopher I don’t think one can say that disentanglement is necessary unless one knows what disentanglement actually means. And I note that you don’t clarify although you don’t support what happened in TEC and I am glad to read that. My own view – for what it is worth – is that there is already a Free Church of England that satisfies the needs for what those who do not wish to see any change are seeking. The CofE is already in communion with that body. I can not see any need to create any further structural differentiation when it… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

I am happy to be corrected, Andrew, but I assume you expect me and those who share my beliefs to leave with nothing but our convictions in our hands.

Why on earth should we ? The family home belongs to all of us. The idea a group of people are expected to just walk out of the front door and not come back is outrageous.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

Peter I don’t expect anything. I am trying to find out what disentaglement looks like. Christopher doesn’t seem to have any ideas and we know that a third Province won’t find support. So I welcome suggestions. But I can’t agree to something called disentanglement until I know what it actually means. The idea of merging with the FCE does not involve leaving with nothing. It is clear that the CofE does not need all of its buildings or all of its hierarchy. I would have thought the obvious thing to do would be to enable some sharing with a body… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Andrew,

I mis-understood you. What you suggest seems a sensible possibility that needs consideration.

I am not entirely sure what substantive difference there is between sharing buildings and hierarchy with a corporate body that is in communion with the Church of England, and accepting a similar arrangement with the shadow structures that will emerge anyway.

Anyway, if leading progressives such as yourself can see the scope for a sensible settlement discussion that is to be welcomed and appreciated.

Peter

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

As noted above, this isn’t a serious proposal and I suspect it doesn’t mean to be. It isn’t serious because it will be seen as a scornful dismissal by those who want to retain the present teaching and faith of the CofE. Instead, they leave, and the CofE becomes the church you would prefer to have. When you say, ‘come up with a plan’ and then proffer this, it simply shows you want to have a CofE where your position is the only one. To repeat, I have spent decades working on avoiding the kind of mess TEC launched itself… Read more »

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Why is it assumed by some TA contributors that entire parishes will fall into one ‘camp’ or the other, and that church buildings (little concept of their sacredness and long history) will be vacated to accommodate another group? (‘Redundant’ churches are another matter.) The reality, I suspect (and my own experience in rural England) is that the majority ‘in the pew’ welcome everyone present without thought of their ‘different’ circumstances or convictions. I’m genuinely puzzled by the reports I read (admittedly on another website) of people experiencing hostility and discrimination. I doubt that ‘re-distribution’ of C of E churches with… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
8 months ago

Rowland,

I think you make an excellent and fundamental point.

The parish as the “beating heart” of the Church of England is surely one of our greatest spiritual treasures and in many other ways as well.

It grieves me beyond measure to say this, but I am certain the parish system as it has existed for centuries will be a casualty of the chaos which is ahead of us.

Peter

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

Parish churches belong to all of us, all the people of England, even perhaps those who choose to worship in other places, as well as those who choose not to worship anywhere. Those of us who worship in them and actively care for them are stewards holding them in trust for future generations. So in general it’s not a good idea for a departing congregation to take the building with them.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

Who said anything about “departing” ?

There is not the slightest justification for the assumption in your comment that orthodox believers will “depart” anywhere.

The problem we all face is chaos. Conservatives have made the observation that an organised settlement would make more sense for everybody. That is all.

If progressives do not agree, that is that. We all go on as we are.

Nobody has the right to expect others to “depart” and nothing I have said is consistent with that notion.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

I agree with you Simon but in many areas there are far too many Churches for the Cof E to adequately care for. Congregations in many are too small to provide even two Churchwardens. It is not sustainable. Peter I think it is worth exploring simply because the FCE has comparable structures and the CofE recognises its orders and the canons permit sharing in various ways. Christopher I am simply asking what disentaglement – your word I think – looks like. You don’t seem to have any idea and that makes it difficult to take seriously. And I thought you… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Andrew,

This is a blog. Even if he wanted to, how can Anglican Priest possibly be expected to sketch out a future structure for the Church of England in a hundred or so words.

It is perfectly obvious what he means. Perpetual conflict just means damage and waste going on and on and on.

People need to get serious and decide to enter a settlement negotiation.

That is clearly what Anglican Priest is saying and he is obviously correct.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

Peter I don’t mind if it’s Anglican Priest or you or anyone else. My point is that it is not possible to understand what disentaglement means unless there is some short explanation of that word. I think it was Anglican Priest who introduced the word and you applauded it. Hence I was asking him what it meant. The fact that no one can give us an example – apart from examples that from previous experience are known to be non-starters – suggests it won’t work.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Lets keep a sense of perspective here, Andrew. We are not talking about some deep and mysterious intellectual challenge.

It would be perfectly possible to design a different administrative structure for the Church of England. You do not want to do that, and that is a common enough view amongst progressives.

That is your prerogative, but this general assertion “it won’t work” will not wash. You do not want it to happen. That is the issue.

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Thanks Andrew. Can you point me to some formal statement that the FCE is in communion with the Church of England?

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

Actually Simon I can’t and so may stand to be corrected. What I can find is the statement from this website reporting that the CofE recognises the Orders of the FCE.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/5895-2/
i have understood that there are other interchangeable functions which had led to some sharing of worship and so on in the past.

Peter Owen
Admin
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

The Church of England recognises the orders of clergy from a number of churches that it is not in communion with, eg the Roman Catholic Church. There is a list of those churches with which it is in communion attached to the Canons. See here and scroll down to “Churches in communion with the Church of England”. This does come with the proviso that “The advice contained in this note is given in good faith, but does not constitute a definitive ruling.” The list does not include the Free Church of England. Canon B43 Of ecumenical relations permits ministers or… Read more »

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

I’m sorry to be so dense, but I can’t see how a departing congregation could legally ‘take the building with them’. If the parish still retained an incumbent with freehold, surely the bishop would intervene. Freehold doesn’t confer absolute power over the church building: the faculty jurisdiction as just one example of its limitations. Aren’t some of these ideas simply opportunistic ‘pie in the sky’?

I’m aware of the ‘happenings’ in certain ‘powerful’ London churches where, frankly, (at least so far) their lawfulness has not been challenged.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
8 months ago

I am making a working assumption you are referring, at least in part, to St Helen’s Bishopsgate with your reference to “powerful” London churches. There is nothing to challenge in regard to lawfulness when the congregation in question has not departed ! This notion of conservative congregations “departing” is a myth. They have done no such thing and there is no prospect at all of them doing so. The fact is that some progressives would like them to do so, and are talking as if it is going to happen. You will know far better than I that wishful thinking… Read more »

Last edited 8 months ago by Peter
Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

Fair comment. But from my rural backwater, declaring UDI from the Diocese is also unacceptable, although I do understand the reason for their stance.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Thank you for indicating your line of thinking for some form of disentanglement.

It is not clear how this would meet the needs of the CEEC.

It sounds like your idea is, ‘cease being a part of the CofE.’

This is surely dead on arrival. It isn’t a serious proposal because it only meets the needs of one side. Yours.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

It meets the conservative “need” to have bishops they consider “orthodox” – the FCE have valid orders and are surely sufficiently anti-gay and anti-women’s ministry to satisfy those who can’t abide sharing a church with those who disagree with them. I understand if they’re not comfortable having Calvin Robinson as a colleague but I’m sure they’ll find they have a lot in common.

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

I don’t feel resourced enough to comment on the subject of this thread in substance; but I’m wondering, Andrew, how one would use ‘disentangled’ in a biblical sentence? E.g., after John 17:21, “That they may be disentangled, as thou Father are disentangled in me, and I thee, that they may be disentangled in us …”. Just wondering.

Neil Patterson
Neil Patterson
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

Jeremy, having been as you know, present at the meeting, I am most grateful for that response, with which I very much agree.

Susannah Clark
8 months ago

I think the meeting represents a turning point.”

In what way?

David Chillman
David Chillman
8 months ago

It would be interesting to know what the archbishop said to the other group in the morning. He does rather have a habit of saying one thing to one group of people and a different message to another group, depending upon what he thinks they want to hear. Did he speak to the conservative evangelicals of ‘radical new inclusion’? Or did he imply that he agreed with their position?

Rowland
Rowland
Reply to  David Chillman
8 months ago

This is what the Bishop of Southwark is doing. Meeting progressives before synod and conservatives after synod, separately.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Rowland
8 months ago

Again, it’s necessary for me to explain that I am not the author of this comment and always write under my full name on TA.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Thank you Helen and Colin for your helpful reflections on Friday’s meeting. I was still on General Synod in Feb 2017 and just before the afternoon session when Synod refused to take note of the Bishops’ paper on sexuality I was present at a meeting hosted by Inclusive Church at which the Archbishop was present. There were some signs of the defensiveness noted here but it was also noteworthy at that meeting that he seemed willing to listen and was genuinely surprised by what he heard. I sensed it was a turning point for him and I believe that was… Read more »

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
8 months ago

Thank you, Andrew. Preaching the Sunday after the Jeffrey John affair broke, in my dismay at the triumph of the bullies, I did what you do when prose fails and turned to the poet: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” Of course it was directed as much to myself for my passivity. I ended by returning to Yeats: “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

I think we now know.

Benjamin
Benjamin
8 months ago

“Over the next five years no one will change their minds…” For what it’s worth, I think people *do* change their minds, and the vast majority of churchgoers who support LGBTQIA+ folks are people who have done so. Getting to know LGBTQIA+ family members or other Christians one-to-one can change minds, as also can explaining (again one-to-one) how inclusivity is consonant with Christian tradition. For what it’s worth, I’m not sure that non-affirming individuals will be convinced only by the sharing of experiences of pain – as vital as it is to offer ample listening and care to the many… Read more »

Mr Mark Cooper
Mr Mark Cooper
8 months ago

I know i am repeating myself but this is an ecumenical matter. Rather than each denomination becoming more divided. Surely they can unite around a position for each view point. I am convinced that ecumenism is the way forward as Christianity continues to evolve to the context in which we find ourselves

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Mr Mark Cooper
8 months ago

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘unite around a position for each viewpoint’. Do you mean form separate groups or denominations for the different points of view on LGBT issues? What if these groups then differ on e.g. women’s ordination, transubstantiation, or church structures?

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Janet Fife
8 months ago

Or infant baptism, or speaking in tongues? On so many issues we could segment off from one another and build fences round ourselves. That’s why it’s questionable whether, over the issue of gay sex, there is a need to re-structure the Church of England. Can’t people just get on with their own consciences, and if a priest doesn’t agree with gay sex, then he/she doesn’t have to marry gay couples. Couldn’t we just have a broad inclusive Church of England, where different conscientious views may be held, but without dismantling church structures to create distances between each other? That just… Read more »

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Susannah Clark
8 months ago

Sadly, Susannah, in my own experience – including issues of tongues and infant baptism, groups who are absolutely copper-bottomed certain they have ‘the truth’ and only they, are incapable of respecting other people’s rights to think differently. There was a good example of this on another (conservative) Christian website recently, when one contributor remarked that he believed most congregations were happy to accept same sex marriages. Another contributor then said that such groups ‘needed re-educating’ – his words -which phrase has some very nasty political overtones. “There is only one valid opinion, and it is mine” is a hallmark of… Read more »

Mr Mark Cooper
Mr Mark Cooper
Reply to  Janet Fife
8 months ago

my general point is each denomination is having the same discussions about the the same issues there must be common ground across the denominations on things

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Mr Mark Cooper
8 months ago

Well yes, but people in different denominations who agree on same sex marriage may well differ vigorously on any number of other issues.

David Keen
David Keen
8 months ago

This is probably why the House of Bishops meets ‘in secret’ rather than allowing anyone present to blog freely about how the meeting went. How is it possible to have open and truthful conversations with people if you know that anyone present will take to the internet to report the meeting in full, including your every frown and vocal inflection? If those at the meeting, including the ABC, gave clear permission for it to be reported in this way, then I’ll stand corrected.

peterpi - Peter Gross
peterpi - Peter Gross
Reply to  David Keen
8 months ago

Amen and thank you, David Keen.
Sometimes secrecy is needed to get people to talk freely and engage openly. If everything in a meeting is going to be instantly critiqued and then attacked online and by radio or TV pundits, meetings become nothing more than everyone giving their 30-second sound bites and no real meaningful dialogue takes place.

Jeremy
Jeremy
Reply to  David Keen
8 months ago

[I am not Jeremy Pemberton]
The Archbishop is a very public figure. Unless there was some understanding of confidentiality going into the meeting, then people may report on what took place.
Sometimes English deference to authority goes too far.

Last edited 8 months ago by Jeremy
Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  David Keen
8 months ago

What is the point of inviting representatives of groups to a meeting if one restricts their ability to feedback afterwards? Indeed, it is inappropriate to put representatives under such a restriction.

Helen King
Helen King
Reply to  David Keen
8 months ago

There was nothing in the invitation about the confidentiality of what would be said at the meeting. I went back to it to check, of course, before writing. Bearing in mind that all were invited as representatives of groups and organisations rather than as themselves, it would seem entirely reasonable that they would feed back to their members – a very large number of people. There was nothing stated at the meeting about confidentiality. This contrasts with the Shared Conversations in 2015, when we physically signed and returned a copy of the St Michael’s House Protocols, and with all other… Read more »

Rev Colin C Coward
Reply to  Helen King
8 months ago

I have got into trouble before because I blogged about a meeting at Lambeth Palace only to be told afterwards that the meeting was confidential and I’d never be invited to another meeting – which until Friday, I wasn’t. At that meeting, no conditions of confidentiality were stated, at the beginning or end. So on Friday I had planned to ask what the conditions were at the beginning of the meeting but didn’t – and nothing was announced. At the end of the meeting I asked the chair (the same chair as had banned me in 2014) whether there were… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rev Colin C Coward
8 months ago

Your characterisation of the conservative position is a travesty of the reality.

Kieran
Kieran
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

Peter, for what it’s worth, Colin has described the reality of the conservative evangelical attitude with clarity and grace. There is nothing inaccurate about his account of the facts of the conservative evangelical attitude. The issue for you is positioning. Colin is viewing the hardline conservative evangelical attitude from the outside. You are viewing it from the inside. The reality is that you apparently accept its tenets and don’t question the motivation of those who teach such contempt towards others. The reality is that Colin has worked for decades on the receiving end of the contemptuous attitudes with which you… Read more »

Adrian Worsfold (Pluralist)
8 months ago

I’m also watching how, in the United States, the United Methodist Church is going about this by organising its own division. In 2019 it kept to the same rules but created a means by which liberals could remove their congregations. In fact it is the supposed ‘orthodox’ who are splitting away and forming the Global Methodist Church. Given establishment forces staying together, it surely isn’t beyond imagination and practicality to organise some sort of dividing within. Then at least more progress is made in parts. The ecumenical agreeing (mentioned within these comments) then follows on from the disagreeing.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Adrian Worsfold (Pluralist)
8 months ago

In line with this, one can also see the Presbyterian Church deciding it was no longer possible to hold together people over entrenched division. “Good disagreement” and “walking together” might cynically be a time-buying exercise; or vainly, a “hope that time will resolve matters”; but in reality, it ends with the kind of season the ABC is enduring. In TEC, the division was handled from the top down, with millions poured into ugly litigations and the defrocking of clergy. Methodists and Presbyterians looked on and said, there must be a different way ahead. The CofE is not exempt from the… Read more »

Cynthia Katsarelis
Cynthia Katsarelis
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

Anglican Priest, that is a mischaracterization of TEC. It didn’t come “down from the top,” our governing body is highly representative of the church. To this day, there is no priest who is forced to practice equal marriage. It simply became untenable to exclude LGBTQ+ people from ordination, consecration, and marriage. All the sacraments for all the baptized. The excluders could not accept being in the same church if we LGBTQ+ people had to be treated with dignity as equal siblings, equally created in the image of God. TEC, our General Convention and the House of Bishops all recognized that… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Adrian Worsfold (Pluralist)
8 months ago

The Methodist Church is not established. In England people have a right to marry in their parish church. It seems bizarre that right extends not just to people who don’t attend church but also to non-believers but not to same sex couples. Comparison with the Methodists therefore isn’t really valid.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Kate Keates
8 months ago

Of course you are right. At issue, as I understood it, was examples where the sand had run out of the hour glass, as it were. The comment to which you respond was speaking of Methodists and their very robust number (much larger that the Episcopal Church) realising something had to be done.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Kate Keates
8 months ago

Disentanglement of some kind is inevitable.

The parish system will suffer as a result, but the separation will be the least worst option.

It is a heart breaking tragedy, but we have to find a way to move on.

GS a week from now will surely be a national humiliation that leaves no option but to settle.

Peter
Peter
8 months ago

I have come to the realisation that the language of “differentiation” is being perceived as provocative to an extent that is a real hindrance.

I think Anglican Priest is helpful in this regard in his choice of vocabulary.

What is needed is a neutral disentanglement. There is simply no point in acrimony and the endless rehearsal of the same arguments.

We need to find an organised way to conduct future business.

The bishops will solve nothing (on that point we are surely all agreed) until the clergy and the laity present them with a solution.

Susanna (no ‘h’)
Susanna (no ‘h’)
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

I am normally so disillusioned with the C of E I have virtually stopped attending services. For particular reasons I went twice yesterday for the feast of All Saints, the second time to a very moving service of Luminaria in a Cambridge college remembering alumnii who had died during the past year. We were read part St John c7 – and follow it closely as I did I never once heard the condition being imposed on those seeking Jesus as the Living Water not to be in a same sex relationship…. It is a very powerful passage for the stumbling-… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

The Scottish Episcopal Church has already demonstrated a solution, but conservatives in the CofE somehow can’t accept what their Episcopalian allies have (with few exceptions) done: leaving it to priests and congregations to act according to conscience, much as the CofE has already done with regard to the remarriage of divorcees. Conservative Episcopalians manage to disagree with their bishops (and even believe them to be engaged in bullying in some cases) without considering this grounds for (however hedged about with softer language) schism. Is it simply about power, that CofE conservatives think they have a blocking minority in Synod so… Read more »

Susanna (no ‘h’)
Susanna (no ‘h’)
Reply to  Jo B
8 months ago

Sadly, it seems current C of E politics are all about power- or the misuse of it , just as is the refusal to settle all the outstanding claims of abuse . I see most of what is currently taking place as a gigantic bullying match.

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Jo B
8 months ago

Um – Jo, that’s slightly misleading, as a good number of conservative Episcopalians left and founded alternative Anglican denominations, now mainly in the ACNA.

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
8 months ago

Is ACNA active in Scotland? (Episcopalians are not just in the USA; the original “episcopalians” were and still are in Scotand.)

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

I stand corrected. My apologies.

Vestry member
Vestry member
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

Yes.

Alastair (living in Scotland)
Alastair (living in Scotland)
Reply to  Vestry member
8 months ago

My understanding is there are/were 6 congregations in Scotland, one of which was very small in numbers when part of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
8 months ago

Having lived and worked in the context of the SEC, they call themselves Scottish Episcopal. I have never heard them call themselves, ‘Episcopalians’ (as against members of the Kirk).

I am happy to be corrected, but ‘Episcopalians” is quite reflexively w/reference to TEC.

Straining at gnats, well, it hurts.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

I thought in Scotland they were called “Piskies” as in the Presby taunt,
” Piskies Piskies, Amen
Doon on knee, and up again”
And the reply,
“Presby,Presby dinna bend
but sit ye doon on man’s chief end!!”

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

I last heard that from a dour cabbie on the way to St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow. He recited it in a broad Weegie accent while dismissing the cathedral (which he claimed not to know the way to) as “the English kirk.” Still, the trip was well worth it to find a minority church that knows how to walk humbly in the world.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

There was also in Scotland (after the Disruption):

The Free Kirk, the wee kirk, the kirk without the steeple.

and in response:

The old kirk, the cold kirk, the kirk without the people

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

I can’t comment on how members of the SEC refer to themselves. I was pointing out that an earlier comment was referring to members of the SEC not members of TEC.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

Just to lay this to rest, I hope without appearing pedantic, the SEC website contains a specific page “What does it mean to be a Scottish Episcopalian?”.

dr.primrose
dr.primrose
Reply to  Tim Chesterton
8 months ago

“Good number” is a matter of perspective, I suppose. According to Wikipedia, in 2019, ACNA had 972 congregations and 127,624 members. In 2020, 972 congregations and 126,760 members. In 2021, 974 congregations and 122,450 members. In 2022, 977 congregations and 124,999 members. These numbers cover congregations in both the US and Canada. ACNA includes the congregations of the Reformed Episcopal Church, a body that left TEC in the 1870s, long before ACNA’s formation. It claimed 13,600 members in 2009, 2016, 6,927 members in 2016, 7,602 members in 2022. It currently claims 119 congregations. Again, these numbers cover congregations in both the… Read more »

dr.primrose
dr.primrose
Reply to  dr.primrose
8 months ago

The movement between ACNA and TEC is not completely a one-way street. I’m aware of two ACNA congregations in the past year that have become, or in the process of becoming, affiliated with TEC. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/august/acna-anglican-leave-episcopal-rez-south-austin-church-table.html

Cynthia Katsarelis
Cynthia Katsarelis
Reply to  dr.primrose
8 months ago

This is true. Especially some of ACNA’s church “plants.” They decided to join TEC. It happened recently in Indianapolis too.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Jo B
8 months ago

I should have thought the ‘solution’ demonstrated in the SEC only showed up the serious contrast with the CofE. There is no major conservative bloc in the SEC of the same order as in the CofE. The few conservative congregations there basically function independently. That was the situation I recall of the two large parishes in Glasgow and in Edinburgh. The dynamics are altogether different given the size of the ‘conservative’ reality in the CofE.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

That’s rather my point – the difference in the proportion and organisation of conservatives is the cause of different approaches to the same challenge. In the SEC conservatives found a way, for the most part and however unhappy they were about it, to live with the changes in the canons that allowed (but did not require them to solemnise) equal marriage. If they didn’t leave in significant numbers, and they did not in Scotland, does that not indicate that accommodation IS possible, but that English conservatives don’t want it because they think they can leverage something they like better? For… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Jo B
8 months ago

I agree with Jo’s comment. In Scotland it was found possible to accommodate the consciences and practices of both ‘conservative’ and ‘affirming’ on this issue of sexuality. They achieved accommodation without structural differentiation. The numbers don’t make the principle of the matter different. In Scotland the two consciences are protected. They co-exist. In England it’s possible too. But what we witness is leverage and power-play being played out by mainly a smallish cadre of ‘career’ clergy who won’t just live and let live, but are using numbers to try to create an independent conservative church within the Church of England… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Susannah Clark
8 months ago

Not just Scottish Episcopalians either – our brothers and sisters in the Kirk have made a similar decision. It was not without pain – my local, very small, Kirk lost two long standing elders over it (admittedly they’d have been more at home with the Frees had there been any locally, being opposed to the ordination of women too), but by and large the fallout has not been significant.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  Jo B
8 months ago

Yes indeed. I suspect there is more of a ‘live and let live’ attitude among the huge central group of worshippers in the Church of England too, who often go unheard compared to vocal activists at the ‘extremes’. I believe most people in the congregations are more concerned about day-to-day parish life, and Christian care in the community, and wouldn’t really want to be separated from the rest of the Church of England because of ‘sex’. If the bishops had the courage to stand their ground on the principle of individual conscience, but no dismantling of Church structures, as in… Read more »

Cynthia Katsarelis
Cynthia Katsarelis
Reply to  Susannah Clark
8 months ago

Just for the record, TEC’s practice is very similar to SEC’s. People can exercise their conscience, they just can’t exclude others for it. This only becomes problematic for conservative dioceses that want excluding bishops. The bishop is required to make a path for LGBTQ+ people to marry.

Jim
Jim
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

St Silas, Glasgow and St Thomas, Corstophine (Edinburgh), along with Westhill (Aberdeen) left the SEC as a result of the 2017 vote. However both St Silas and St Thomas had a significant minority of members who wished to stay and many of them left their seceding churches to worship elsewhere in the SEC. The two biggest SEC congregations, St Mungo’s Balerno and Ps and Gs (both Edinburgh, both conservative/charismatic/evangelical) chose to stay and they continue to play a significant and gracious role in the life of the Diocese and of the Province.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Jim
8 months ago

I am aware of this. I know the churches. Ps and Gs is a very independent operation, and as you say, gracious.

My point was only to say, the demographic situation in the CofE is very different. Think St Silas and multiply by a factor around 1000.

The SEC is a very modest, intimate place. The CofE isn’t positioned over against the much larger Kirk.

Asking the CofE to breezily adopt an accommodation that suited (the bulk) of the SEC isn’t dealing with this difference. The SEC is the SEC.

Jim
Jim
Reply to  Anglican Priest
8 months ago

I’m not asking the C of E to do anything. I happen to think it is no longer a place of safety for progressives or anyone other than white, well-to-do, cishet men. Which is why I left.

I was merely correcting your errors in describing St Silas and St Thomas as ‘the two large congregations’. The largest ones stayed, and operate fully within the framework of the Diocese and Province, not ‘independently’.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
Reply to  Jim
8 months ago

St Silas and St Thomas were originally English chapels who only joined the SEC in the sixties I believe and had some degree of autonomy . Am I correct?

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

I’m not sure that is true of St Silas, but I believe it is true of Ps and Gs and St Thomas Corstorphine. Others can correct me.

Jeremy Pemberton
Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

I am Jeremy Pemberton. The Church of England, as a matter of fact, is still the established church of the land. That being so, any solutions that mean that we make access to church and its care and its sacraments any more of a postcode lottery than we already do (so sorry, women) is absolutely unacceptable. We ought to be developing an ecclesiology that opens us up to the communities we are there to serve, not requires of them religious tests before they can be part of us. This means, that in a society where it is illegal to discriminate… Read more »

Tobias Haller
Tobias Haller
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

Hear, hear. A state church really ought to follow the laws of the state. If that sounds too Erastian, it might be helpful to note that the Reformers’ concepts of marriage as “an estate allowed” or “a matter for the town hall” were very far from treating marriage as a cornerstone of the Christian religion, far less a touchstone for orthodoxy. This need not be a church-dividing issue.

Anthony Archer
Anthony Archer
Reply to  Tobias Haller
8 months ago

A rather inconvenient piece of Reformation history for the ConEvos today!! Thank you.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Anthony Archer
8 months ago

This is why it has been uncontentious, or at least undivisive, in other national Protestant churches.

Richard Eves
Richard Eves
Reply to  Tobias Haller
8 months ago

Could you provide the citations here?

Tobias Haller
Tobias Haller
Reply to  Richard Eves
8 months ago

Certainly. Article XXV of the Articles of Religion (“Of the Sacraments”) states that marriage is not of like nature to the sacraments of the gospel, and is a state of life allowed by Scripture. (As a side note, Article XXXII notes that marriage is to be permitted to clergy as to all others). The notion that marriage is a civil matter (though, of course, blessed by God as a natural blessing preexisting all others) is laid out to some extent by Martin Luther. In his “Marriage Booklet” (1529) — included in some printings of his Small Catechism — he laid… Read more »

Richard Eves
Richard Eves
Reply to  Tobias Haller
8 months ago

So to be clear, you are taking Article XXV’s statement that marriage is a ‘state of life allowed in the scriptures’ as evidence of the reformer’s erastianism?

Tobias Haller
Reply to  Richard Eves
8 months ago

No. The Erastian element in English tradition since the Reformation, as an Established or State Church, seems obvious. In marriage, the Church of England functions as an agent of the state (for a considerable period of English history the only authorized “registrar”!) Article XXV is about marriage not being a “sacrament of the Gospel.”

Tobias Haller
Tobias Haller
Reply to  Richard Eves
8 months ago

Articles of Religion XXV and Luther’s Marriage Booklet (appended to the Small Catechism, 1529).

Dan Appleyard
Dan Appleyard
Reply to  Tobias Haller
8 months ago

Thank you Tobias!

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

Spot on!

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Jeremy Pemberton
8 months ago

Conservatives want constitutionally independent traditionalist bishops.

There is no essential reason why that should require the post code lottery to which you refer.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying a settlement would be easy or likely. I am just saying you are raising an objection that is not insoluble.

Last edited 8 months ago by Peter
Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

In essence they want to build a new province which, in a few years time, could leave the Church of England en-masse. Lee Gatiss gave the game away – he doesn’t want to be in the same church as people who bless same sex relationships. https://anglican.ink/2023/11/06/lee-gatiss-reports-on-traditionalist-meeting-with-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-at-lambeth-palace-on-llf/

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Kate Keates
8 months ago

CEEC have been calling for structural differentiation for a considerable time.

You refer to Gatiss “giving the game away” as if conservatives have some dastardly secret plan which he has now accidentally revealed.

The opposite is the truth. Our call for disentanglement is in the public domain and could not have been clearer.

Last edited 8 months ago by Peter
Jack Pott
Jack Pott
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

What happens if a same sex couple, who do not attend church, live in a parish that does not allow same sex marriage? How can it not be a postcode lottery?

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Jack Pott
8 months ago

I do not accept your premise that the situation you describe would defeat any and all efforts to find a resolution

Terence James Pott
Terence James Pott
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

I seriously doubt there would be any efforts to find a solution.

(I am one and the same person as T and Jack Pott).

Kieran
Kieran
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

It is heartening to read comments like yours that express a desire for episcopal ministry. One is filled with the joy of anticipating something of a catholic revival among conservative evangelicals. Where it might be headed? Could it be that we’re about to see vestments and incense at All Souls Langham Place? Pontifical high masses at Holy Trinity Brompton (we know they have access to all the required bling and people with the know-how)? Such things would be wonderful indeed. Eucharistic processions and rosary crusades at St Helen’s Bishopsgate? This would be amazing to see. Imagine a national Alpha gathering… Read more »

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
8 months ago

Lee Gatiss ( Church Society) has made public something of what took place at the meeting with conservatives. It can be read on Anglican Ink.Thiughts?

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

There is a fundamental distinction that has to be made here.

I would say exactly what Lee Gatiss said if I had the opportunity to speak to the most senior bishop in the Church of England.

I do not, however, go round telling everybody else they are heretics.

Our quarrel, as conservatives, is with the bishops. We no longer respect or trust them as a body.

We want to work with anybody else – including, perhaps especially – progressive clergy and laity to get us all out of this cauldron.

Homeless Anglican
Homeless Anglican
Reply to  Peter
8 months ago

So what you want is a self defined congregationalism? You have tantamount said that the bishops are heretics – that is why you want out.

And I would caution some perspective here.

This narrative is utterly irrelevant to the world a large. Whilst you worry about what pantone of purple the shirt of your leader is defined by, the world craves acceptance not judgement and sanctuary without condition.

Mr Gatiss puts his hand up at a meeting and says ++Justin should resign. I wonder if history might paint him with all his flaws as rather more prophetic.

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Homeless Anglican
8 months ago

You are getting carried away with your own rhetorical flourish.

I have said not a single word about episcopal garb.

Please stick to the reality of what is actually said by conservatives

David Chillman
David Chillman
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

“When asked if we had confidence in his leadership or whether he ought to resign prior to his planned retirement in 2 years, both I and one colleague raised our hands to say he should resign.”

I’m not sure what depresses me most. The sheer vitriol in Lee Gatiss’ piece (quite apart from its factual errors), or the idea that Justin Welby plans to bumble on for another 2 years. Goodness knows how bad things will be by then.

Fr Dexter Bracey
Fr Dexter Bracey
Reply to  David Chillman
8 months ago

I’m curious as to who asked the question. It would be telling if Welby himself had asked whether or not people had confidence in him.

Francis James
Francis James
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

He seems very fond of making accusations of heresy & demanding disciplinary action against those who transgress against implacable rules. People who are that sure & that squeaky clean worry me.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
Reply to  Francis James
8 months ago

I rather wonder who he would like +Justin’s successor to be? With all that disciplinary action the field would be small

Fr Dexter Bracey
Fr Dexter Bracey
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

I suspect that there will be many, in all sorts of corners of the C of E, who are only clinging on to nurse for fear of something far much worse.

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Francis James
8 months ago

Given that Global south and their friends have effectively declared UDI by disfellowshipping the Western church, and Justin Welby, and neither he nor the organisation have the power or authority to do anything about disciplining them, how does Mr Gatiss hope to achieve this? Practically, and seriously speaking.

Francis James
Francis James
Reply to  Perry Butler
8 months ago

Amidst the general fray of CoE in meltdown there is some hope. An hour after Gatiss posted his diatribe, Anglican Ink went on to publish an article about the German RC bishop of Speyer addressing his diocese in the wake of the ground-breaking “Synodal Way” gathering that involved, for the first time, women and other laity with voting rights. https://anglican.ink/2023/11/06/german-rc-bishop-authorizes-same-sex-blessings/ The full letter (3 pages) is worth reading, and those who do not speak German will find that Google translate does a fair job. What the Anglican Ink piece does not reveal is that according to the German Bishop’s letter 93%… Read more »

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Francis James
8 months ago

I think this is fascinating and deserves more attention. I subscribe to The Tablet magazine as I really appreciate its arts, culture and politics coverage presented through a spiritual lens. As a bonus it lets me keep an eye on what is going on in the Roman Catholic world. It seems clear that Pope Francis has the courage to face down the minority (but vocal and bullying) Conservative lobby. This has enabled the compassionate mainstream centre ground to be heard, and emboldened them to move forward (albeit slowly) with very welcome changes, such as the one mentioned here. I think it… Read more »

Will Newman
Will Newman
8 months ago

I am saddened by Justin’s stony grumpiness and defensiveness as described by both Helen and Colin, at a time when he needed to show grace, understanding and openness. Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to have meetings on the same day with the conservatives and progressives (for want of better terms).
And who scheduled such a meeting to last only 90 minutes to listen and respond to the hurt, concerns and views of a room full of people? Seeing that was clearly inadequate, and given the importance of the meeting, Justin could surely have abandoned the rigid time limit?

David Runcorn
Reply to  Will Newman
8 months ago

As someone who was there – what we saw was a Christian leader close to complete exhaustion. I came away very concerned for him.

Laurence Cunnington
Laurence Cunnington
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

Indeed. I have no insider knowledge of what happened at the meeting – only what I have learnt from Colin Coward’s report. The description of Justin Welby’s behaviour reads to me like that of someone who was just about ‘holding it together’ – and I mean personally, not the Anglican Communion.

Adrian
Adrian
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

Sometimes, and this may be one of them, people stay in post after they have the energy to fulfill the duties of that office.

Andrew Lightbown
Andrew Lightbown
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

Thank you David, whatever ‘we’ think of how LLF has been led, and whatever we think should happen next, we all have a responsibility to exercise care and compassion, as well as a duty to pray.

Stephen Griffiths
Stephen Griffiths
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

It is sad but helpful for the church to understand how things are for ++JW. I have for a while felt that last few years for the CofE have been a public outworking of his own internal struggles to reconcile conservative and progressive views. That is not a reason to blame him for all our woes, but Christian leadership does involve leaving the imprint of one’s personality on the church, at least for a while.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

Not having been there, that was my reaction. There is only so long one can push a boulder up a hill.

I have found myself in situations where you are asked to sit for a considerable amount of time as a listener, and the format does not allow or encourage back-and-forth, if only to break up the solid phalanx of one-after-the-other. Then things get pent up. It is an unnatural way to communicate humanely.

I wonder how long he can last. Hope there is good chaplaincy input.

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

A friend of mine tells me that he knows Justin personally, and feels that ‘he is a broken man’ (quote). Don’t forget it is not that long since his mother died, and he’ll still be sifting through the traumas of that, never mind what’s going on in a wider field. As far as I’m concerned, he is a brother in Christ, struggling with the burden of life, and needing my prayers, as well as yours. So please, pray for him in Christian compassion.

There but for the love of God could go any one of us.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  John Davies
8 months ago

It seems unseemly to gossip about the health of someone who isn’t a contributor here.

Anthony Archer
Anthony Archer
8 months ago

Maybe I’m naïve, but it is not clear to me why ++Justin felt the need to host these two meetings (facilitated sensibly by David Porter). The objective seems to have been so he could explain where the House of Bishops is on all this, and importantly listen to participants. But the fact is +Londin is leading on LLF, she is moving the motion attached to GS 2328, ++Ebor is presumably available, and ++Justin is, and always been, terribly conflicted, given where the Anglican Communion is. I cannot see what the upside was, and by all accounts there was only downside.… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Anthony Archer
8 months ago

Fair observation. My only guess is that he wanted to know whether the last minute changes had placated conservatives and couldn’t meet with them without meeting with affirming groups too.

David Runcorn
Reply to  Anthony Archer
8 months ago

Actually both meetings were, in David Porter’s own words, ‘unfacilitated’. We were simply free to speak. Like others I was unsure of the value of yet another meeting. This was my fifth since July. Except that since ++Justin launched all this in 2017 with his call for ‘radical inclusion’ he has largely absented himself from the project – at least front stage. So, at this late point, to be meeting with him and talking directly to him actually mattered to me and others. I was grateful. My other comment would be to note that the afternoon meeting appears to have… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

I very much trust in your generous heart, David, but is “a long road ahead” acceptable for people who are being harmed, hurt, excluded today (and all the days and years ahead down this long road)? At what point do people say ‘enough’ and just go ahead and publicly bless and affirm LGBT people in church, and publish acceptance of devoted gay intimacy on church websites and social media? There appears to be deadlock in General Synod. That leaves other options for moral leadership: Grassroots leadership, with local churches deciding to act on their consciences and what they owe to… Read more »

David Runcorn
Reply to  Susannah Clark
8 months ago

Susannah Of course it is not acceptable! I was simply stated what I think to be the case. There are no short cuts on offer. But I see on this long road an increasing refusal to accept the official rules, to simply act inclusively wherever possible … and horrible fractures alongside that as the conservatives work out their actual responses in the right of next week.

Susannah Clark
Reply to  David Runcorn
8 months ago

God bless you David, and those you work closely with. And thank you for your work with others on the Inclusive Evangelicals initiative, which provides real encouragement and in a way community.

Bob
Bob
8 months ago

I see that Jayne Ozanne is saying that it is time for Justin Welby to go too. It seems that both sides think he should go.

Peter
Peter
8 months ago

Dear Anglican Priest, There are a combination of reasons which mean that the current leading progressive voices are not going to engage with a negotiated settlement. Partly, it is the very human and understandable fact that they have invested so much time and energy, and over so long, into their cause. They are deeply committed to their own objectives. It is also the fact that they believe that the “arc of history” is in their direction and therefore the Church of England must and will eventually move in their direction. Perhaps the saddest aspect of their perspective is that they… Read more »

Last edited 8 months ago by Peter
Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
8 months ago

This seems to be the right place to mention a recent announcement about the Independent Safeguarding Board. These are interim appointments, but GS member Kashmir Garton is to be interim chair and Jane Chevous, who founded the group, ‘Survivors’ Voices’, is to be vice-chair: official announcement below:

https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-news-releases/interim-chair-and-vice-chair-churchs-national-safeguarding

144
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x