Anglican Mainstream

By Matthew Davies, ENS

More than 400 Anglican bishops from Africa are being joined by international partners, diplomats and representatives from relief and development organizations for a weeklong gathering in Entebbe, Uganda, to focus on issues of conflict, poverty, corruption and disease on the continent.

By Ed Thornton, Church Times

THE Archbishop of Canterbury warned Lutherans last week of the “variety of traps” that Churches can fall into.

Dr Williams had been invited to address the Lutheran World Federa­tion (LWF) Assembly, in Stuttgart, Germany. The traps, he said, in­cluded conducting “inter-Church quarrels in a spirit that sends out a clear message of unwillingness to live with the other and be fed by them”; consuming time and energy in “what we like to think of as service to the needy, while ignoring our own need and poverty”; and imagining “that by faithfully performing the liturgy we embody the reality of the Kingdom, whether or not we are being trans­formed into a community of mutual nourishment”.

The Archbishop’s comments come at a time when Lutherans are de­bating issues such as women’s ordina­tion and the place of homo­sexuals in the Church. Referring to the Lord’s Prayer, Dr Williams said: “Praying . . . for our daily bread is praying to be re-acquainted with our vulnerability, to learn how to approach each other, not only God, with our hands open.

“We cannot fully and freely pray for our daily bread when we are wedded inseparably to our own rightness or righteousness, any more than we can when we are wedded to our own security and prosperity.”

Read here

By Jonathan Derbyshire, New Statesman

The last time the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, spoke to the New Statesman, it was at the end of 2008, a year that our writer, James Macintyre, described as "one of the most difficult for Anglicanism since the Reformation". The Lambeth Conference, the assembly of bishops from the worldwide Anglican Communion that meets every ten years, had begun amid what even the Archbishop acknowledged was "bitter controversy" over questions of sexuality. But by the end of the conference, the dire warnings about lasting schism over the matter were largely forgotten. Williams, Macintyre reported, had won over his critics: "Conservatives and liberals embraced and previously sceptical bishops spoke of a 'new Pentecost'."

This year, however, the Archbishop's gift for compromise and reconciliation appears to have deserted him. On 10 July, a proposal designed by Williams and Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, to permit the creation of separate dioceses for those opposed to the ordination of women priests was rejected by the Church of England's General Synod. Apocalyptic predictions of mass defections of Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity to Rome duly followed.

Read here

Mention was made on Saturday during the debate of the possibility of some presidential reaction to where we are in the process. After conversation over the weekend with many people from different stances within the Synod, it seemed right to say something this morning. First I’d like to say that I would want encourage Synod to complete the business here before it in York. It’s very tempting at times of stress and difficulty, such as we’ve been through in the last couple of days, to think: “We’ll drop it in the ‘too difficult’ basket” – I don’t really think that’s an option.

Archbishop Sentamu and I explained when we moved our amendment on Saturday that we didn’t think a further referral to a revision committee would really help us at all at this stage and we remain of that view. We believe that we now need the dioceses to give their wisdom, their prayer and their thought to this process, and to move on.

The second thing I’d like to say is – and we’ve had a meeting of House of Bishops this morning – the House of Bishops will set in hand promptly the necessary work involved in producing a draft code of practice which will be available for debate in Synod, when legislation returns from the dioceses in about 18 months time. That, of course, is the moment at which we’ll enter the final phase of this long and complex process. That is when all the material will be finally on the table.

Read the rest of this entry »

From The Telegraph

Dr Rowan Williams said the General Synod's failure to back a last-ditch compromise that he and the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu put forard at the weekend was not the ''end of the road'' in the process.

He said he wanted the General Synod meeting in York to complete its deliberations over women bishops before handing the legislation over for consideration by the Church's dioceses. 

'It is very tempting at times of stress and difficulty such as we have been through in the last couple of days to think 'drop it into the difficult basket','' he told the General Synod.

''I do not really think that is an option.''

Dr Williams' remarks came as the Church's national assembly resumed debates over the introduction of women bishops and how best to cater for objectors.

Read here

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, telegraph

On Saturday night, the Archbishop of Canterbury suffered the most humiliating defeat of his time in office when the Church rejected his compromise deal over women bishops. It followed a week in which Rowan Williams had found himself at the centre of a storm over the blocked appointment of Jeffrey John, the homosexual Dean of St Albans, to be Bishop of Southwark.

Castigated by liberals who accused him of betraying his old friend by not securing his promotion, the Archbishop arrived at the General Synod in York also facing a mutiny over his plans to avert an exodus of traditionalists opposed to women's ordination.

On the eve of one of the most pivotal debates in the Church's recent history, liberal bishops had met to discuss how they would derail proposals put forward by Dr Williams and Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.

They were well aware of the impact that their rebellion would have on Dr Williams's authority. But they were still prepared to take drastic action because of their despair at his suggestion that a new tier of male-only bishops should be created to minister to traditionalists. This would undermine the role of women bishops, they believed.

Read here

From AFP

LONDON — As the Church of England prepared on Saturday to discuss the thorny topic of women bishops, the Archbishop of York called for an end to "spin and propaganda" targeted at the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Dr John Sentamu told the church's general synod there has been a "general disregard for the truth" in recent criticism of Dr Rowan Williams.

Sentamu's comments come after a selection committee including Williams this week blocked a bid by an openly gay cleric to become a Church of England bishop, amid fears the controversial ordination could have further strained the Anglican movement.

"It deeply saddens me that there is not only a general disregard for the truth, but a rapacious appetite for 'carelessness' compounded by spin, propaganda and the resort to misleading opinions paraded as fact, regarding a remarkable, gifted and much-maligned Christian leader I call a dear friend and trusted colleague – one Rowan Williams," Sentamu said.

Read here

From BBC News

A leading conservative Anglican has warned the Church of England could split if an openly gay man is appointed Bishop of Southwark.

Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, is said to be among a number of clergy nominated for the post.

His supporters say Dr John is the right man for the job in a liberal diocese.

But traditionalist Canon Chris Sugden said his appointment would lose the allegiance of orthodox parishes and clergy.

The conflict over homosexuality and the ordination of gay clergy has threatened to split the Anglican Communion for years, with critics saying it may cause a similar breakaway to that in the US Episcopal Church.

Conservatives insist the Bible unequivocally outlaws homosexuality, while liberals believe the Bible should be reinterpreted in the light of contemporary wisdom.

Read here

By Roland Morant, Virtueonline

At what seems like the eleventh hour, the two archbishops (Canterbury and York) have stepped quite dramatically into the ongoing debate on women bishops in the Church of England.

On the morning of 10th July 2010 at York the General Synod will start to debate the recommendations of the Revision Committee. With its inbuilt majority favouring the adoption of a scheme which inevitably will fail to address all the concerns of those who will not accept the novelty of women bishops – let alone priests – the Committee has opted for a statutory code of conduct, the adoption of which in individual dioceses will depend on the goodwill of female (and male) ordinaries asked to implement it by delegation.

There seems little doubt that if this scheme which is stated in the revised draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, is passed substantially in its present form, the likelihood is that there will be a considerable outflow of traditionalists from the Church. All such clergy and lay people will undoubtedly feel that they have been forced out by the intransigence of the majority to meet in any way their concerns.

In the new scheme Resolutions A and B will disappear, and lay people will no longer be able to stop women priests being imposed on them in their parishes. Equally bad, male priests "ordained" by female bishops may also be forced on traditionalist parishes.

In due course the Act of Synod with the means that it affords for parishes to petition for pastoral episcopal oversight ("Resolution C"), will be swept away and with it the consecration of provincial episcopal visitors, the so-called flying bishops.

It is also very apparent that the archbishops are only too aware of this likely outcome. They do not wish to continue to preside over a church where a sizeable portion of its catholic element will have departed to who knows where. As for those who remain, what female bishop will be able to perform her episcopal duties knowing that though she might dress as a bishop and be styled as the Very Reverend, some of her flock may well regard her as a mere play-actor?

So what have the archbishops proposed in their paper of 20th June 2010?

Read here

By Stephen Sizer

In a typically Anglican understatement, a press release from the Anglican Communion News Service tries to put a positive spin on what can only be described as a humiliating embarrassment for Archbishop Rowan Williams.

It reports the appointment of two new people to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, lists the agenda for the next meeting, and then adds:

"They will also be discussing Standing Committee membership issues including electing a successor to Bp Azad Marshall, Bishop of Iran, and noting the resignations of Archbishops Justice Akrofi and Henry Orombi."

I wonder if they will be 'discussing' the reasons for these resignations. Losing one Archbishop is bad enough but losing two and a half is just plain embarrassing.

In April, Archbishop Orombi wrote a letter to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams raising concerns that the Standing Committee has assumed "enhanced responsibility" and expressing his dismay that its membership includes representatives from the U.S.-based Episcopal Church.

Matthew Davies of the Episcopal News Service has a fuller explanation.

Read here

From AAC

By Charles Raven, SPREAD

London’s Lambeth Council has some helpful advice on its website about dangerous structures: ‘If you notice a building or structure that appears to be in a dangerous condition, or in serious neglect, an engineer will inspect the problem and take the necessary action. If the structure is unsafe, but there is no immediate danger, then the owner will be contacted to make it safe – if they don't, they may face enforcement action.’

There is no question of course that the material fabric of Lambeth Palace, the historic London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is in good order. In fact, the Archbishop’s website reassures us that there are ’plans for future work to upgrade the fabric of the Palace’, but the spiritual fabric of the Church over which he presides is looking increasingly precarious. Many believe that the Church of England’s forthcoming General Synod in York may well be the last chance the proprietors have to stave off collapse – and there are strong hints of enforcement action if they fail to take adequate steps.

The immediate pressure on the Church of England’s structures comes from the relentless drive to see women in the episcopate on terms which will effectively eject those who cannot in conscience accept female oversight. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have belatedly put forward a formula which, they believe, recognizes that both those who oppose and those who accept women’s ordination are ‘loyal Anglicans’ as agreed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference (Resolution III.2.c), but for their pains have been upbraided in an open letter by curate Lindsey Southern, a member of the committee of the feminist pressure group WATCH (Women and the Church), for adopting a ‘smoke and mirrors’ strategy.

Read here

By Ephraim Radner, from Covenant Forums

Over the past few weeks, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC), Katharine Jefferts Schori, has responded pointedly to the removal of TEC’s members from Anglican Communion commissions dealing with ecumenical relations and matters of the Communion’s “faith and order.” The removal itself was announced at the end of May in a letter to the Communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It was later explicated by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Canon Kenneth Kearon, during visits to the Canadian church’s General Synod, and TEC’s Executive Council. At issue, of course, is TEC’s decision earlier this year to go forward with the consecration of a partnered lesbian, Mary Glasspool, as a bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles. And this decision, according to Archbishop Williams and Canon Kearon, is one that goes counter to a consistently articulated position by Communion councils. These councils have, over and over, insisted that church affirmations of same-sex partnerships are, on the basis of Scriptural teaching, contrary to the “mind of the Communion,” and therefore that e.g. the consecration of partnered homosexual bishops and church-administered same-sex blessings should cease among member churches.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s response has criticized Archbishop Williams’ decision on several grounds. Here, let me address just three of her objections: first, that the Archbishop’s actions represent a move towards “centralization” within the Communion, viewed especially in terms of the application of “sanctions” against member churches; second, that in removing TEC members from the Communion commissions in question, the Archbishop has somehow acted as if the proposed Anglican Covenant now before the Communion’s churches were already in effect when it is not; third, that a proper understanding of the Communion’s life would entail the maintenance of diversity among Anglican churches, rather than the (punitive) pursuit of “uniformity.”

Read here

To the Archbishops of Canterbury and York

June 24 2010

Your graces,

We welcome your intervention in the run up to the General Synod debate on the Women Bishops' measure and its helpful recognition of the need to address the issue of jurisdiction by means of a 'nominated bishop' arrangement. This certainly represents a significant improvement on the current draft of the measure but there are some aspects which are unclear to us.

To secure the honoured future of those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, there will need to be further elaboration as to their powers of ordination, appointment and licensing. There also needs to be further elaboration on how consistency between the dioceses will be achieved.  A scheme that derives authority from the whole church should have arrangements also provided by the church as a whole.

As you will be aware there is much interest amongst us in the concept of a mission society. We are continuing to explore this concept which, if carefully crafted, will provide the necessary fellowship for the bishops, clergy and people so affected, would give much of what is necessary in a clearly Church of England framework, and provide a strong impetus for mission.

Yours sincerely in Christ

Paul Perkin
Chris Sugden

for the Steering Committee of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
(UK and Ireland)

By Chris Sugden, Evangelicals Now

Anglicans on both sides of the homosexuality debate have concluded that the crisis is now behind us. The key decisions have been made both by TEC and orthodox Anglicans in the Global Communion. TEC has clearly walked apart. The leader of the LGCM in the UK said that a schism should be now recognised.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent a Pentecost letter to the churches addressing the situation. His minimalist response is little more than wordplay.

He uses the term diversity to describe a range of views on a number of matters, as though they were all examples of a positive diversity to be embraced: diversity of tongues and languages in which the gospel is proclaimed, diversity of gifting and service, human diversity, societies are diverse, diverse peoples of the world, diversity of views on infant baptism, a coherent Anglican identity does not mean one with no diversity, which of course includes a diversity of views and practice on sexuality.

The Archbishop frames the current disputes as diversity, which become divisions because of misunderstandings and failures of communication. He thus reinterprets clear disobedience by TEC to the will of God as set forth in Scripture and recognised by the Church and reduces it to mis-communicated diversity.

The problem as he diagnoses it, is that some provinces, not only TEC, have formally adopted policies that breach the moratoria on same-sex consecrations and on crossing provincial boundaries to address this. All such provinces therefore will have their representatives on ecumenical dialogues reduced to consultant status. To go by what happened at the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham in 2005 when TEC representatives were present only as observers, this will mean no difference whatsoever: another play on words.

What is needed is better communication through “encounters that take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies” – in other words in backrooms where there is no correct procedure to appeal to but all decisions are left solely in the hands of the powerful.

Read the rest of this entry »

From The Lead

An American Episcopalian received the response below to his email concerning his "disappointment … in the manner in which our Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, was treated during her recent visit to Southwark Cathedral."

[...]   Dear Mr _____,

Thank you for your e-mail to which I have been asked to respond as, I am sure you will understand, Archbishop Rowan is not able to reply personally to as much of the correspondence he receives as he would wish. It may help if I set out some of the background to the questions you raise.

The Dean of Southwark first issued an invitation to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori before the Lambeth Conference in 2008 – one in what I understand to be an ongoing programme of invitations to Primates of the Anglican Communion. She was not able to accept the invitation at that time and last Sunday’s date was subsequently agreed. Initially the invitation was to preach, however, earlier this month it became clear that the Presiding Bishop would be asked to preside at the Eucharist too. As the intention was for her to 'officiate' at a service the Archbishop’s permission was required under the provisions of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967. This is a matter of English law. The Archbishop’s permission under the Measure is the means of confirming a person’s eligibility to exercise their ministry in the Church of England and applies to any clergy ordained overseas. The application form (an example of which is at www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/faq/appform.rtf) asks the necessary questions – although in the Presiding Bishop's case it was explicit that the 'letters of orders' were not required. The Archbishop's permission was sought and granted, although the legal and canonical framework of the Church of England prevents the Archbishops granting permission for a woman priest to exercise a sacramental ministry other than as a priest. The agreed approach of the English bishops [not all] is that women bishops celebrating under these provisions should do so without the insignia of episcopal office so as to avoid possible misunderstandings.

Read here

24 June 2010

PRESS STATEMENT

From the Catholic Group in General Synod

Responding to the statement of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York Re. forthcoming women bishops debates

The Catholic Group in General Synod is grateful to the Archbishops for their suggestion of a possible way forward for the Church of England, both to enable the consecration of women bishops and to provide for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of women bishops. We are particularly grateful for their recognition of the need for bishops with jurisdiction in their own right to minister to us, and to all those who share our convictions.

We look forward to studying the amendments in detail when they are published. We very much hope that they will provide 'nominated bishops' who will be real leaders in mission and ministry. It is also be vital that the amendments provide for us to continue to hold a principled theological position, looking to the faith and order of the undivided Church. We believe that the Church will be better served by the consistency of a national scheme of provision.

The Catholic Group is wholly committed to securing provision within the Church of England.

Canon Simon Killwick

(Chairman of the Catholic Group)

By Fr John Hunwicke SSC (Hat Tip Fr Ed Tomlinson)

I regard the proposals which the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are promoting as profoundly disappointing. I had been led by rumours to believe that they would be offering something that would in effect be a Third province … or an Ordinariate … within the Church of England. They are not.

What is clever about their scheme is that it claims to give us "good news" while at the same time purporting to require only a couple of minor changes in the draft legislation. It ostentatiously claims not to diminish the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops. This, combined with the deference still felt by many towards the archbishops, is likely, in my view, to incline a substantial number of the less fundamentalist liberals to tolerate it; and there will be Catholics who, despite the rhetoric which they have adopted over the years, will be willing to clutch at any straw which can be disguised as a fig leaf enabling them to remain in the Church of England.

Furthermore, any criticisms of the archiepiscopal plan will be met by pointing out that it would in effect create a situation closely similar to what we have now. At the moment, a diocesan can decide to whom to hand on the care of 'petitioning' parishes – it doesn't have to be to one of the flying bishops. So, it will be argued, Catholics will be no worse off under the new system than they are at the moment. Indeed, because of the strong moral pressure on diocesans to follow a (not yet drafted) Code of Practice, we shall, they will say to us, be better off. And, above all, 'our' bishops will, for the first time, have genuine jurisdiction.

Read here

From Fr Ed Tomlinson

Bishop Edwin Barnes has given an early reaction to the amendments being proposed by both Archbishops:

Forward in Faith has welcomed the amendments which the two Archbishops are proposing. I am less sanguine than FiF about this attempt to get round the Revision Committee’s proposals concerning women in the Episcopate in England.

A Refurbished Fig Leaf to Spare the Bishops’ Blushes

The notion the Archbishops are pressing is “co-ordinate jurisdiction” – by which they mean that the ‘nominated bishop’, a sort of downgraded PEV, will exercise those functions which the Diocesan Bishop decides to hand over in his or her diocese.

Now I have had to deal with diocesan bishops. Some of them see no problem in letting Flying Bishops operate. Others have allowed only minimal functions to be undertaken; for instance, not allowing them to ordain candidates within their diocese, even when the candidate has requested it from the start of training. There has been a Code of Practice agreed by the House of Bishops, and this Code has been undermined and ignored in far too many instances. Each diocesan has decided for himself how much of the Code to implement, and how much to ignore. The Archbishops’ proposals make this situation potentially much worse.

What the Amendments spell out quite clearly is that “the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, whether male or female, remains intact (the Archbishops’ emphasis) and he or she … would be legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese.” We have all seen the generous Bishops in Wales insisting on celebrating in the most stalwart Forward in Faith parishes. Until now, the Act of Synod has saved us from that in England. In the future, there will be no protection, no votes A or B, only a Letter of Request to the Diocesan from the parish. And what of protection for the laity not in such parishes, or for ordinands, or for those in non-parochial posts?

Read here

By Paul Handley, Church Times

THE Archbishops of Canterbury and York have published their intention to amend the women-bishops legislation to help secure the continued place of traditionalists in the C of E.

In a long note, issued on Monday morning (below), the Archbishops propose what they describe as “small but significant changes” to the draft Measure, due to be debated by the General Synod early next month.

The key proposal is to make the provision of traditionalist bishops part of the Measure itself. As a result, the authority of these men would derive from the Measure and not be delegated by the diocesan bishop, who might be a woman.

At the same time, the diocesan bishop, male or female, would remain “legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese”. They would, however, refrain from doing so in a parish that had made a formal request for a traditionalist bishop.

The system would continue to be governed by the national Code of Practice, still to be drawn up, and mediated through a diocesan scheme, as outlined in the existing draft legislation. Crucially, the diocesan bishop would still nominate the bishop to minister to traditionalist parishes.

Read here