Just before Christmas, there was international press coverage of an alleged baptism in Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire.
See for example this report Next on Entertainment Tonight: Celebrity sacraments.
However, the Irish bishop Paul Colton mentioned in these reports, who had married the couple involved (he was at the time, the rector of the parish in Ireland where the wedding took place) completely denied having had any part in this event. See BISHOP OF CORK CRITICISES INACCURATE JOURNALISM.
Nor had the incumbent of Sawbridgeworth had any involvement. The Bishop of St Albans knew nothing about it either.
The mystery remained until The Tablet this weekend published an item about it in its Notebook column which, after reporting the events so far, continues:
2 CommentsA spokesman for the Beckhams’ agents tells us it was a woman priest in the Church of England but at the request of the couple would give no further details.
“They consider the matter private. It was a Church of England ceremony with additions and readings chosen by the family,” he said. He added that the woman priest had also consecrated the chapel which the Beckhams had renovated, rather than built themselves. It was not used regularly for worship.
Final Update Friday
An even more ridiculous attack on RW’s article by TE Utley in the Telegraph
Simple English for the Church of England
Update Thursday
The Guardian has published this attack on the Telegraph for what they did:
The bishop who believed. An extract:
The sensational headline was simply a lie. The story beneath it, though clumsy, was not blatantly false. Of course – Dr Williams was quoted as saying – terrible events like these shook people’s faith. But Christians must face the challenge, and focus on a passionate engagement with the lives that were left. Nowhere at any point did the story suggest that Dr Williams was questioning God’s existence. Inside, for those who cared to look for it, was the text of what the archbishop had actually written. I cannot see how any literate person reading this piece could honestly have drawn the conclusion that the Sunday Telegraph headline did.
…The Daily Telegraph here was asking us to accept not just that the headline writer honestly thought the sentence about upsetting faith could be equated with Dr Williams doubting the existence of God, but that various higher editors, culminating in whoever was in charge of the paper, were dozy enough to share the same delusion. (And you don’t need to read the archbishop’s piece “several times over” to notice the difference. A single swift reading will do.)
Update Monday
The Daily Telegraph carries this editorial leader concerning the matter reported below:
Faith in plain language. An extract:
We have some sympathy with the archbishop. Those who had time on their hands to read his article several times over will realise that he was not in fact doubting the existence of God. The headline writer had clearly been misled by the sentence: “Every single random, accidental death is something that should upset a faith bound up with comfort and ready answers.”
The archbishop’s purpose here, it now appears, was to say that the Christian faith should not be upset by natural disasters, because it is a faith that is not “bound up with comfort and ready answers”. But what a convoluted way of putting it.
If Dr Williams was indeed misrepresented by our sister paper’s headline, he himself must accept much of the blame. His prose is so obscure, his thought processes so hard to follow, that his message is often unclear.
The Sunday Telegraph carried an article by Rowan Williams and a news story about it.
The article was published under the headline:
Of course this makes us doubt God’s existence
and the news story was headed
Archbishop of Canterbury admits: This makes me doubt the existence of God
Lambeth Palace issued the following release concerning this at 11 pm on Saturday evening:
1st January 2005
For immediate use
Lambeth Palace has issued the following statement in response to the Sunday Telegraph’s first edition story with the headline ‘Archbishop of Canterbury admits: this makes me doubt the existence of God.’
“Whilst the Archbishop’s article itself has been transcribed faithfully, the headline reporting it is a misrepresentation of the Archbishop’s views.
“As any reading of the text makes instantly clear, the Archbishop nowhere says that the tsunami causes him to question or doubt the existence of God; rather that the Christian faith does not invite simplistic answers to the problem of human suffering”.
“It is extremely disappointing that what is a thoughtful response to the challenge posed by events of these kinds to the mind and heart of the believer has suffered in the search for a headline.”
ENDS
6 CommentsThere will be several meetings in January and February, at which the Windsor Report will be discussed. Here are some of them:
10-13 January: Church of England, House of Bishops, in Leeds
12-13 January: Episcopal Church USA, House of Bishops, in Salt Lake City Utah
11-14 February: Episcopal Church USA, Executive Council, in Austin, Texas
14-17 February: Church of England, General Synod, in London (the WR debate is scheduled for the morning of Thursday 17 February)
21-26 February: Primates Meeting, near Newry, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
1 CommentDesmond Tutu discusses the tsunami tragedy, God, Iraq and the re-election of George W. Bush in this major “web exclusive” interview from Newsweek.
Part 1
Part 2
The January issue of the Anglican Journal reports on what is happening in Canada as a result of the Windsor Report
Council members spar over Windsor Report
Group will frame church response to report
Commission will decide on doctrine question
And two further stories recount diocesan level events:
Toronto defers vote on blessings
Blessings vote causes rift with Catholics
While this story recaps the global situation:
Primates’ response to report will be key
0 CommentsSo far, 16 provinces have issued statements on the Windsor Report, either through their primates, house of bishops, or synods: England, Ireland, Canada, United States, Nigeria, Central Africa, South Africa, Burundi, Tanzania, Southern Cone, West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, Uganda, Wales, and Scotland.
Six – Congo, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, and West Africa – joined Nigeria, Central Africa and Uganda in releasing a statement criticizing the report, at the recent African Anglican Bishops Conference.
Sixteen have reserved comment: Bangladesh, Brazil, Central America, Hong Kong, Japan, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Korea, Melanesia, Mexico, Myanmar, North India, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Southeast Asia, and South India.
Statements that have been issued highlight flashpoints that foreshadow a potentially rocky primates’ meeting. With the exception of South Africa, Burundi and Tanzania, nine other African primates, plus the primate of the Southern Cone (of South America), are upset that the report did not recommend discipline of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) and the diocese of New Westminster and does not call for repentance from them. They are also riled at the suggestion that they “express regret” for having offered episcopal oversight to those opposed to homosexual bishops and same-sex blessings.
Mark Dyer and his critics are not the only Americans who have been speaking about the Windsor Report.
Here are two further transcripts of recent talks by ECUSA seminary faculty members who, while broadly supportive of the report, have also made significant criticisms of it. Both articles are worth a careful reading in full.
Ellen Wondra delivered her inaugural lecture as Professor of Theology and Ethics at Seabury-Western on 18 October, ten days after the report was published.
‘The highest degree of communion possible’
Wondra believes that when WR uses the word consultation it means “reaching an agreement” and she believes this is how it is used in the Church of England.
For over a century and a half, the churches of the Anglican Communion have claimed that it is necessary to “consult” on matters that affect the whole communion. But we have yet to reach agreement on what “consultation” means. There are, indeed, two definitions of consultation. One is the notion of talking seriously with other folks as part of making decisions; that tends to be what the Episcopal Church and some other provinces mean by “consulting.” But in the CoE, “consultation” means reaching an agreement. So, on the CoE reading, the Episcopal Church did not consult prior to the consecration of Bp. Robinson; whereas on our reading, we did, though certainly not as widely as we ought to have done. So one big question is how we agree and determine that adequate consultation has taken place. The Windsor Report goes with the CoE view: consultation has happened when people agree. This has enormous implications, as we will see.
She also believes the WR account of the history of women’s ordination is flawed:
Frankly: This reading is a caricature, and it omits many salient points. There is nothing of the intensity and vitriol of a very public controversy both within the various provinces and at the level of the Communion itself. There is nothing of the dire threats of schism and the breaking apart of the Communion, or of the schisms that did take place, or of the extra-canonical actions of various bishops. The “measure of impairment” to which the Report refers to is the prohibitions put on women deacons, priests and bishops, many of which still exist today — notably in the Church of England, where there continues to be a ban on women bishops from functioning as bishops in that province. Nor is it mentioned that the controversy over the ordination of women prompted the Lambeth Conference to direct the Archbishop of Canterbury to set up a special commission to study how the communion might maintain “the highest possible degree of communion” among “the Provinces which differ.”
Nevertheless on the WR as a whole, she says:
9 CommentsThe Windsor Report recognizes that dispersal of authority to local provinces, dioceses, lay people, and so on has for many years and most of the time served the Anglican Communion pretty well. It has allowed us to engage in “local adaptation” of all kinds of things, from the BCP to questions pertaining to gender, sexuality, moral life, the interpretation of Scripture, the designation of guiding traditions, and the like. It has made it possible for us to be a global communion in which there is great diversity but still considerable unity, based on a common faith and what has been called “bonds of affection.” Certainly there are times when these “bonds of affection” have been strained. Indeed, the very first Lambeth Conference was convened in response to such strain. And both the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council had to deal with such issues at their very first meetings.
But, in the judgment of many, perhaps most, Anglicans and our major ecumenical partners, this dispersed authority is not now serving us well and is indeed contributing to difficulties that may, perhaps not long from now, spell the end of the Anglican Communion. I think this judgment is correct, on the basis of the plain evidence. The familiar marks of communion – dioceses and provinces being in communion with other, bishops respecting each other’s territorial jurisdiction, respectful discourse, patience in disagreement, and so on—have been violated numbers of times. While these violations have occurred in the context of controversies about sexuality and gender, they are more profoundly connected to matters of authority. Indeed, the gravest sign of crisis in the Anglican Communion may very well be the crossing of diocesan and provincial boundaries by bishops — something prohibited in the earliest canons of the worldwide church, those of the 4th century Council of Nicaea.
The BBC Radio 4 morning programme Today is this week having various “guest editors”. Today it was Bono. One of the special features he requested was for the Thought for the Day slot to be given to Njongonkulu Ndungane Archbishop of Cape Town.
You can hear what he said with Real Audio here.
Stories related to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon are here.
The Telegraph reports that churchgoers live longer. The secret of long life… go to church.
The Sunday Times says that David Stancliffe says that Prince Charles should consider a Register Office wedding (middle part of the page).
There was further positive news for him this weekend as a senior figure in the Church of England raised the possibility of a resolution to his marital status by proposing a register office wedding.
David Stancliffe, Bishop of Salisbury, said: “If the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles expressed a wish to marry, the proper pastoral approach should be to advise them to seek a civil ceremony which may be followed by prayers of dedication in church.”
This suggestion, which he said was supported by the majority of the episcopate, marks a significant development from the position taken a year ago by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Williams indicated that the couple might not meet the criteria for a remarriage in church.
According to Stancliffe, the church’s expert on liturgy, the dedication ceremony would be appropriate for a future supreme governor of the Church of England. “That can be a solemn and splendid affirmation of their new marriage.”
An act of parliament would be required because at present there is no provision for the royal family to marry in a register office.
And the BBC today reports on one of its own programmes:
Gay cleric attacks bullying. You can read the entire sermon here and judge for yourself whether this is a balanced report of the sermon as a whole.
Update Monday
Other news reports of this event:
The Times Challenge thugs, says gay dean
Guardian Gay cleric accuses church of giving in to bullies
Earlier this month, AKM Adam wrote a highly pessimistic blog article entitled How Would We Know in which he said:
I’ve been surveying the usual suspects, web sites that comment on the present unhappy controversies in the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion. Although I respect and sympathize with Archbishop Rowan Williams, I have the sinking feeling that his hopeful outlook may not be as well-founded as he seems to think.
This was a reference to RW’s Advent Pastoral Letter. AKMA continued:
I wish I thought we Anglicans could keep together. I will be overjoyed to find that I’m wrong, and I will grieve deeply if “churches will go their different ways, even to the point of competing with one another.” What causes me unease lies in the tone of the observations I find on the various contending sites, and especially on the unwavering confidence the various speakers reflect. I’m especially uneasy when I ask myself, “How would we (or ‘they,’ however ‘we’ and ‘they’ get constructed) know if we (or ‘they’) were wrong?”
For it seems, on the face of things, that of two people saying mutually-contradictory things, one or the other will probably have erred. And if I’m right, if there’s no evident way one or the other party discerning that they might be wrong, how would either recognize their error and seek correction? The disapprobation of the preponderance of Anglican provinces won’t demonstrate that the (majority of the) U.S. church is wrong about sexuality, any more than it demonstrated that the (majority of the) U.S. church was wrong about ordaining women. Since the Windsor Report seems to treat the process leading to the ordination of women (which has become at least a tolerable difference) as exemplary, the U.S. church has some reason to think that its course leading to the consecration of Gene Robinson may mark a parallel path.
But if the (majority of the) U.S. church has gone fatally astray, how are they to know it? One can’t simply repeat that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is non-biblical; plenty of what has become common practice was once deemed unbiblical. One can’t invoke the Vincentian canon quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (“that which is believed everywhere, at all times, by all”), not unless one wants to roll back the ordination of women and the possibility of remarriage after divorce (to name but two prominent non-universal points). And even the Windsor Report allows the possibility that the Spirit might effect radical change in the church’s course. That concession obviously doesn’t require that anyone think sexuality constitute such an instance of Spirit-led radical change; at the same time, it evidently holds open the possibility, the mere possibility that the (majority of the) U.S. church’s understanding of sexuality does represent such a surprising change. That being the case, what would count as a reason for the (majority of the) U.S. church to reverse course?
Very recently, the Anglican Communion Institute has recently published a new lecture by Philip Turner, former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale. This was delivered to a meeting in the Diocese of West Texas.
“THE WINDSOR REPORT: A “SELF” DEFINING MOMENT FOR ECUSA And The Anglican Communion”
(published 23 December)
(Dr Turner is also the author of Shall We Walk Together or Walk Apart? (published 10 November), a talk which has considerable overlap of content with the later version.)
Although Dr Turner holds views which are unequivocally on the conservative side, he is a strong supporter of the Windsor Report:
As my colleague, Oliver O’Donovan, said recently, when placed along side most Anglican Documents, the Windsor Report is decidedly “up market.” In contradistinction to a number of contrary judgments, I agree; and the burden of my remarks will be designed to show that, despite certain omissions and errors (some serious) the report provides a credible way forward both for ECUSA and the Anglican Communion as a whole.
And he has some strong criticisms to make of extremists on the right as well as of those on the left, which bear repeating here in full:
It has become painfully clear to me in the past months that there are those on both the left and the right who, though they would probably deny it, have made a choice to walk apart. The prophets on the left claim the backing of divine providence that has placed them ahead of the pack. They are content to go it alone and simply wait for others to catch up. The prophets on the right claim to be the champions of orthodoxy—charged with maintaining a faithful church in the midst of “apostasy.” They are content to go it alone and await the vindication of God. WR maps a more arduous and painful way forward – one that seeks to create a space in time within which very serious divisions within this portion of the body of Christ can be confronted and overcome.
My starting point is that of WR. I want to map a way forward that keeps Anglicans together as a communion. I want to show what it might mean for ECUSA to make a choice for communion rather than denominationalism and federation. I am consequently saddened by the reaction of those on the left – one that expresses regret but makes it clear that they will motor on despite the wreckage they may cause. I am saddened also by reaction of those on the right who seem to exert more energy thinking about a way forward after ECUSA rejects WR than it does seeking to bring ECUSA to a considered and charitable response to what I believe to be an extraordinarily fine ecclesiological statement.
And again, when discussing the WR’s account of the Anglican “communion ecclesiology” that has shaped recent Anglican ecumenical dialogue, he says:
From my perspective, one can only hail this starting point if for no other reason than the authors of WR feel bound to the ecumenical commitments of the Anglican Communion; and in so doing do not (as is now so common) act as autonomous agents utterly unencumbered by either history of social ties. Nevertheless, it must be noted that many on both the left and the right do not begin their ecclesiological discussions here. Many on the left begin with the church as a prophetic vanguard commissioned to fight within various political systems for the rights of those who are disadvantaged by those systems. Many on the right view the church primarily as the guardian of certain saving truths contained in Holy Scripture and in various creedal or confessional statements. These perspectives, different though they are, lead those who hold them to similar visions of themselves; namely, as advocates and/or guardians who must, before all else, hold to principle.
Where, I wonder, are the leaders, on both the “left” and the “right” in ECUSA, who are able and willing to listen seriously to each other and find a way forward?
17 CommentsThe BBC radio programme Sunday comes this week from York Minster and is entirely about York. All the items are worthwhile but the following is the most interesting.
David Hope is interviewed at length: this is in two parts. Part 1 is here (3 minutes). Part 2 is “hidden” inside this part which starts with a discussion of the history of Christianity in York. The interview begins about 6 minutes 50 seconds into the feed, and lasts for 10 minutes, and this contains his comments on several current issues.
Strongly recommended (Real Audio required).
The BBC programme Sunday Worship came this morning from the Cathedral and Abbey Church of Saint Alban.
You can hear the entire programme with Real Audio here
or read a transcript here
Update: Maggi Dawn has posted about this sermon: you can read what she says, and also the comments of her readers, here.
Further Update So has Kendall Harmon: see here.
News reports of this event are here.
0 CommentsRowan Williams preached this morning in Canterbury Cathedral.
Press Association Archbishop Attacks Rich Nations’ ‘Indifference’
BBC Archbishop asks rich to help poor
Reuters Archbishop challenges West on poverty
ABC News Online Anglican head claims nations ignoring global poverty
Update: Sunday papers
Sunday Times Church leaders use sermons to attack government over war
Observer Fight poverty not wars, says Williams
Independent Churches condemn terror spend
The full sermon will no doubt appear on his own website in due course. Update now available here
Meanwhile it is available on ACNS, and also here on TA, below the fold.
The reference in the sermon to ‘fire in the equations’ is to this book: The Fire in the Equations: Science, religion and the search for God by Kitty Ferguson
0 CommentsThe Spectator magazine has this feature article about Rowan Williams, written by AN Wilson:
Holy sage
(and continued on page 2). The entire article should be read, but here is one quotation:
0 CommentsIn spite of what some Christians today believe, the future of Christianity does not depend upon what a few bigots on the one hand, and a few homosexual enthusiasts and their friends on the other, believe about same-sex unions. It really does not.
The loudest critics come from some little enclave within the Church — whether ‘high’ or ‘low’ — where they are so busy with their church hobby and so smugly certain of their own rectitude that they have managed to overlook a rather obvious fact. Their churches, such as Holy Trinity Brompton or St Helen’s Bishopsgate might be full to the rafters on Sunday mornings, but the numbers who enjoy their particular form of holy club are a tiny minority of the population of this planet. Rowan Williams is sufficiently intelligent and normal to be aware that in the West, being religious these days is, outside America, very distinctly odd, and trying to defend Christianity against the whole ethos of materialism and scientific rationalism which most intelligent people take for granted is a more than intellectual task. We might very well be living in Christianity’s last days. Many of us who go to church do so a little wistfully, knowing that, unlike Rowan Williams, we do not believe in the ways which our ancestors did. ‘Our prayers so languid and our faith so dim’ is one of the few lines of a hymn which we could sing with gusto. ‘Fightings within and fears without’ might be another.
Tom Wright has written in a local newspaper the Northern Echo about Cracking the Christmas code
Giles Fraser has written in the Guardian that Empires prefer a baby and the cross to the adult Jesus
and Stephen Bates ( with a little help from Jim Rosenthal) has profiled Saint Nicholas
Bishop, legend, saint, fairy story, retail therapist, and film star … How did a pile of bones in an Italian basilica become the soft drink-swigging patron saint of brides, and our last remaining link with the original meaning of Christmas?
John Bell writes in the Independent
At Christmas we can dream and imagine how the future should be
But this year, I sense a new affection displacing seasonal cynicism. I don’t believe that the fascination with Christmas is simply a reminiscence project, a season dip into sentimentality or (depending on the carol concert) banality. Rather, I suspect that in the retelling and rehearing of the Christmas narratives, there is some latent yet profound hope stirred within us. Increasingly the skies above us are associated with dread as much as beauty. This is the result of being exposed to almost weekly conjectures about the state of the ozone layer or the discharging of carbon dioxide. Might it not be that deep in our hearts we want to believe that the air above us is a place for angel-song and celestial harmony, and that somehow ecology has to do with cosmic praise as well as freedom from pollution?
The Telegraph leader column is titled The disarming paradox of the child Emmanuel
In The Times Geza Vermes asks When you strip away all the pious fiction, what is left of the real Jesus? He says in part:
The ingredients of Jesus’s religion were enthusiasm, urgency, compassion and love. He cherished children, the sick and the despised. In his eyes, the return of a stray lamb to the sheepfold, the repentance of a tax collector or a harlot, caused more joy in heaven than the prosaic virtue of 99 just men.
Because of His healings, many saw in Jesus the Messiah, triumphant over Rome and establisher of everlasting peace. Yet he had no political ambition. Rumours that He might be the Christ were nevertheless spreading and contributed to His downfall. His tragic end was precipitated by an unpremeditated act in the Temple. The noisy business transacted by the merchants of sacrificial animals and the moneychangers so outraged the rural holy man that He overturned their tables and violently expelled them. He thus created a fracas in the sanctuary of the overcrowded city before Passover and alerted the priests.
So the Temple authorities, the official guardians of peace, saw in Jesus a potential threat to order. They had to intervene promptly. Nevertheless even in those circumstances, the Jewish leadership preferred to pass the ultimate responsibility to the cruel Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who condemned Jesus to death. He was crucified before Passover probably in AD30 because in the eyes of officialdom, Roman and Jewish, He had done the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Just as the New Testament had prefaced the biography of Jesus by the joyful prologue of the Nativity, it also appended an epilogue to the tragedy of the Cross, the glorious hymn of the Resurrection. Indeed, Jesus had made such a profound impact on His apostles that they attributed to the power of His name the continued success of their charismatic activity. So Jesus rose from the dead in the hearts of His disciples and He lives on as long as the Christian Church endures.
Also in The Times Simon Jenkins writes about stained glass in Marvel at Heaven’s doorway and there is a leader entitled Have faith which ends:
5 CommentsToday, perhaps, faith comes less easily to most than it once did. There is more competition for attention and, in the West, we seem to have more power to choose and a greater range of choices. What does it say about human nature that so many choices impoverish the spirit?
The case for appreciating what a religious dimension can bring has, of course, been made more difficult in a world scarred by fundamentalist violence and blinkered zealotry. But it was just such a world into which Jesus was born. And His message has endured, while the fanatics of His time have become history’s footnotes. It is paradoxical indeed that a message of love, which survived centuries of hate, is now in danger of being lost through mere indifference and self-absorption. Our culture would lose so much if what we owe to faith became forgotten. That is why we are glad to say to all our readers, whatever their beliefs, that we firmly hope the spirit of Christmas is with them.
The Church of England Newspaper reported the Rosemont story this way: American traditionalist takes rival consecration
The report includes the following comments from others:
“Fr Moyer’s deposition by the Bishop of Pennsylvania accused him of ‘abandoning the communion of this church’,” Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, a leading Forward in Faith bishop, told The Church of England Newspaper. “He had not done that; but now, if he is consecrated, he will have removed himself from the Anglican Communion,” said Bishop Iker, who also asked Dr Moyer to resign as president of FiF (North America).
Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh counselled Dr Moyer not to accept the post and later released a statement distancing the Anglican Communion Network from the announcement. “I regret that his decision raises difficulties in his relationship to the broader Anglican Communion,” he stated on Dec 20, noting that Dr Moyer had resigned as FiF’s representative to the Network.
Lambeth Palace spokesman, the Rev Jonathan Jennings, released a statement confirming that Dr Moyer had discussed the matter with Dr. Williams but that “the Archbishop was not asked for his blessing on the proposal; he expressed himself in terms of pastoral support to Fr Moyer during what will be a transitional phase from one form of ministry to another.”
“Dr Williams was clear with him, however, that this development would pose serious canonical obstacles to the prospect of Fr Moyer exercising a priestly ministry within the Anglican Communion and advised Fr Moyer to discuss the matter fully with his Ordinary as part of the process of discernment,” wrote Mr Jennings.
The Church Times in its News columns this week (not on the web yet) carries only a short notice of the bare facts, but does remind its readers of what happened in 2002: Carey and Williams back leader unfrocked by US bishop is how the Church Times reported it then.
Meanwhile, although Dr Moyer is no longer the Dean of the FiFNA Convocation within the NACDAP, he remains the President of FiFNA, and as such issued this Message from the FiF North America President.
update a further comment on 20 December from Fr Cantrell.
1 CommentThe next meeting of General Synod will be from 5pm on Monday 14 to 7pm on Thursday 17 February. The Convocations and the House of Laity will meet on the Monday afternoon.
Synod members have been sent an outline agenda today; I’ve put it online here.
0 CommentsThe Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has issued a press release. It is not yet on their own website, so the full text is below.
It announces the resignation of David Moyer as dean of the FiF Convocation within the Network.
Update 11.45 pm GMT
This release is now available on the Network website:
The Anglican Communion Network Announces Resignation of Moyer as Dean
Forward in Faith has now posted two items relating to this:
A statement from FiFNA: Fr David Moyer is Elected as a bishop in the Anglican Church in America (the official copy of what was first published at titusonenine). This includes the following:
The date of Fr. Moyer’s consecration, February 16th, was chosen to coincide with a previously-scheduled international meeting which will bring the bishops who will consecrate him into the Philadelphia area. Some concern has been expressed that it will come just before the meeting in Ireland at which the Primates of the Anglican Communion will respond to the Windsor Report. Fr. Moyer has assured FIF/NA that this timing is simply a matter of coincidence: it is not meant to sent any message to the Primates, and FIF/NA hopes that Fr. Moyer’s election and consecration will have no impact on their deliberations.
While his consecration in the ACA will not affect his constitutional standing within FIF/NA, the Council and Fr. Moyer are considering whether or not he will continue as its President.
A statement from Fr Geoffrey Kirk of FiF UK: FiF UK reacts to Fr Moyer’s Election . This reads:
Forward in Faith UK has learned with interest of the proposed consecration of Fr David Moyer, currently President of Forward in Faith North America, as a bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion. We trust that Fr Moyer will be able to use his new role in the Anglican Church of America to assist those in the Episcopal Church who have been disenfranchised by the ordination of women as priests and bishops. We regret however that those responsible did not see fit to consult the bishops of Forward in Faith around the world before reaching their decision.
Meanwhile the Philadelphia Enquirer had this report for its readers this morning: Embattled Episcopal rector joins Anglican denomination. This headline reflects the confusion!
Update And the Associated Press via the Centre Daily Times reported it as Defrocked Episcopal minister moves to Anglican church post
which is equally likely to upset all concerned.
The verbatim Report of Proceedings for the July 2004 meeting of General Synod is now available. You can download it, either in full (a 1.2 MB pdf file) or in daily sections, from here.
0 CommentsSeveral newspapers are reporting this story:
Cathedral city prays while the rest of Britain plays
Residents of Hereford are Britain’s most devoted churchgoers
Manchester comes top of the godless league
Christmas cancelled due to lack of interest
Cities ‘shun church at Christmas’
but only the BBC links to the data on which the reports are based.