CONFIRMED: JUSTIN WELBY FOR ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

 

Sources have confirmed that the Eton-educated bishop will be announced as successor to Dr Rowan Williams as early as Friday, after the Crown Nominations Commission put his name forward to Downing Street. 

It marks a meteoric rise for the former oil executive who has been a bishop for only a year, but insiders described Welby as "the outstanding candidate".

The bookies and Ruth Gledhill were right.

Bishop Welby supports women bishops, but so far as I can discern, he probably does not favor either same-sex marriage or gay bishops.

UPDATE FROM THE BBC:

In a pastoral letter to his diocese on the issue he wrote how he was "committed to and believes in the ordination of women as bishops".

He has been less forthright about his views on homosexuality. While he has rigorously defended the Church's right to oppose single-sex marriages, he has also been keen to accommodate opposing views expressed from a position of deeply held faith.

BISHOP ALAN SPEAKS OUT FOR GAY MARRIAGE

Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, one of my heroes, says in the video:

“It all comes down to how we see gay people and how we see God. We don’t actually believe gay people are sick or stunted or criminal. We don’t believe God is an angry old man out to get us.

“Let’s stop behaving as though we did. Recognising gay people are equal means they won’t dilute or spoil marriage but potentially enrich it.”

Condemnation of the statement comes quickly.

Duncan Boyd, chairman of Keep Marriage Special, said: “The bishop’s statement is a disgraceful and disingenuous distortion of biblical teaching by someone who ought to know better.

“Scripture, the Church of England’s doctrinal foundation, makes clear that homosexual desire and practice are sinful.” He called it “a gross distortion of biblical teaching” to suggest such behaviour could be practised freely, adding: “The Government should not change the law and the bishop should teach what the Bible says or resign.”

"Keep Marriage Special" sounds like a club for teenage girls organized by a clueless adult.  I pray Alan does not entertain the thought of resigning for one second.  What nonsense.  Thank God for a bishop in the Church of England with the courage to speak out.

Then comes the voice of negativity from the church:   

 A Church of England spokesman contradicted Dr Wilson. “Our Church is committed to marriage as being between a man and woman,” he said.

The people of the country are far ahead of the church, which needs to catch up or the institution will be left further behind than it is already.

UPDATE: Bishop Nick Holtham of Salisbury has also spoken out in favor of gay marriage.

BISHOP JUSTIN WELBY - CENTRAL CASTING ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY?

Although he's fourth in line behind Christopher Cocksworth, Graham James, and John Sentamu, Giles Fraser likes Bishop of Durham Justin Welby for Archbishop of Canterbury.

Paddy Power has him as 6:1 to be the next archbishop of Canterbury. But Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham, is having none of it. He really doesn't want the job. "Lets be clear, I'm one of the thicker bishops in the Church of England," he tells me. I'm not taken in by this disarming self-deprecation – something for which Old Etonians like him are not especially noted. No, there is nothing remotely thick about Bishop Welby. 

Ah well, I don't know whether Bishop Welby is thick or not, so I'll take Giles' word for it that he's not.  For the sake of my English friends, I hope and pray for a wise choice by the Crown Nominations Commission.  For the sake of the Anglican Communion, too, although I hope the leaders of the Episcopal Church will never again be as obsequious to another Archbishop of Canterbury as they have been at times to Archbishop Rowan.  I also nurse a small hope that the next ABC might like the members of the Episcopal Church just a little and have the occasional kind word for us, unlike Rowan Williams who seemed so often to scorn, scold, and lecture.

"I have tried to avoid saying anything," he admits at the end of the interview. Well, I'm not sure he succeeded. On many levels he seems like a central-casting Church of England bishop. On the subject of women bishops he speaks of the need to square the circle, reconciling those who think it a theological necessity and those who think it a theological impossibility. How do you do this? "Well, you just look at the circle and say it's a circle with sharp bits on it."

On the question of women bishops, Bishop Welby surely succeeded in not saying anything to me, for I have no idea what he means by his "circle with sharp bits on it".  Still, he'd have Giles Fraser's vote, if he had a vote, which should count for something.

OUR MAN DIARMAID ON WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Well, Diarmaid MacCullough is our man in a way, as he's a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.  In his latest article in the Guardian, MacCullough notes that despite claims to the contrary, in the early church the label "apostles" is not limited to the 12 named in the Gospels.  Paul, writer of the epistles to early churches, emphatically claimed the title of apostle, and, in his letters, he speaks of women in leadership roles and named Junia as an apostle in the letter to the Romans. 

The great distorting factor in Christian history which transcends denominational and many other ecclesiastical divisions is that most history has been written by men. And the truth is that men are for the most part not very interested in women, except in certain very specific ways – most of which have been officially out of bounds, because of the general tendency of past Christian historians to be not just men, but celibate clergymen.

(Pause)  All right, I had to stop for a chuckle.

There is another wild card to take into account in history: the way that something which once seemed so important to everyone can suddenly seem of no significance at all – and then all the worries are rapidly forgotten, as if they had never been. Let me point you to one of the most long-lasting examples: the Christian ban on menstruating women from participation in the sacraments or even from approaching the altar..

Oh ick!...and another chuckle.  Men!

MacCullough doesn't mention Mary Magdalene.  Earlier in the article the writer reminds us that apostle means messenger, and the Magdalene was the messenger at the tomb whom either Jesus (John's Gospel), or the young man in the white robe (Mark's Gospel), or the angel (Matthew's Gospel), or two men in dazzling apparel (Luke's Gospel) sent to the disciples with the good news that Jesus was alive.

Do read the entire article, as it is excellent.   In the end, MacCullough advises the male bishops to just get on with the business of ordaining women bishops.

LOWER ORDER WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

Let's hope and pray that will not be the case.  The following poem was written by David Booker, a former colleague of themethatisme.  David kindly gave me permission to post his poem.

The case for clause 5. 1c

You are not like me.
The difference is obvious,
as plain as the nose on your face.
I am sorry to say
that although I have nothing against you
personally,
and although some of my best friends are like you,
I cannot, in all conscience,
accept the gift you offer.

Please don’t feel this secondary issue
in any way makes you second class.
Rather marvel at my exegetical acrobatics,
turning up to down, and north to south,
and Galatians 3 verse 28*
into a culturally bound reflection
we cannot be expected to take literally.

You must allow bigotry to triumph over grace
because unity demands the majority be silent.
As good Christians you must respect me
even when I refuse to recognise you
or eat from a table you may once have used
for fear of contamination
and deliberately airbrush you out of scripture
by mistranslating your name to suit my prejudice.

Yes, although our Church recognises
there is no theological objection,
you must turn a blind eye to injustice,
chauvinism, sexism, poor scholarship
and an incredulous watching world,
to guarantee a perpetual place for my ignorance.

After all, the permanent no go areas
we are asking you to create
will not stop those of others races,
or those with a yet incurable disease,
from exercising their ministry.
No, we only want to protect ourselves from women
and we really don’t understand the fuss.

David Booker

*Galatians 3v28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
I can not support the amendment 5. 1c and dearly hope that it will be removed.

The statement on clause 5(1)c from the website of the Church of England.

WATCH (Women and the Church) on the clause:

But the amendment to Clause 5 has caused widespread dismay. It would entrench discrimination against women in the Established Church and place a permanent question mark over the validity of women's orders.  The confusion over its interpretation amongst commentators demonstrates that it would prove to be bad law

Sign the petition requesting the House of Bishops in the Church of England to withdraw clause 5(1)c.  You don't have to be English to sign.

MORE "NOT IN OUR NAME" FROM MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The following is a letter to the Times of London, (behind their paywall) from bishops, lay members of General Synod, and other prelates in the Church of England dissenting from the statement purporting to speak for "the Church" on the proposal to allow same-sex civil marriage in England. 

To: The Editor
The Times

Sir,

A number of recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the mistaken impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples. We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England.

Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.

While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’

The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.

We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.

We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.

It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.

Sincerely

Canon Giles Goddard, General Synod, Southwark
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans
The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham
The Rt Rev Michael Doe
The Rt Rev John Gladwin
The Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth
The Rt Rev Peter Selby
The Rt Rev David Stancliffe
The Very Rev David Brindley, Dean of Portsmouth
The Very Rev Graham Smith, Dean of Norwich
The Very Rev Victor Stock, Dean of Guildford
Mrs April Alexander, General Synod, Southwark
The Rev Stephen Coles, General Synod, London
The Rev Clair Herbert, General Synod, London
Mr John Ward LLB, General Synod, London

Just one more reminder, amongst many, to us all and to the anonymous persons who put together the statement on same-sex civil marriage that, whoever they are, theirs are not the only opinions within  the Church of England.

H/T to Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans.

A GREAT CHASM...

SCG put together this Bishop Yellow Belly video a year and a half ago.  The content seems as relevant today as when it was made, including the portion on the Anglican Covenant, as I suspect that there are those in the Church of England who wish to revive the corpse.

UPDATE: No sooner had I hit "Publish" when a new post from Paul Bagshaw in England appeared in my reader on (of all things!) the subject of the Anglican Covenant.

"No timeframe" and "following ACC-15" keep options open. Drexel Gomez' drumbeat of 'urgent, urgent' has clearly been ignored. Instead an open-ended process would allow the Anglican Consultative Council to kill the Covenant if enough members wished to do so. Alternatively it would allow one province after another to sign up till those who had initially declined to do so became overwhelmed by its popularity and conceded.

Hmm...and further from GS1878: report by the Business Committee on the reference [of the Covenant] to the dioceses :

6) ... For the record, there is nothing in the Synod’s Constitution or Standing Orders that would preclude the process being started over again, whether in the lifetime of this Synod or subsequently, by another draft Instrument to the same effect being brought forward for consideration by the General Synod before being referred to the dioceses under Article 8. The Business Committee is not, however, aware of a proposal to re-start the process in this way.

Please read Paul's entire commentary on the shenanigans "amongst those who might regard themselves as 'players' in this particular game."  Sounds to me as if the "players" want to keep all options open, including an attempt to revive the corpse of the covenant in England.  

WHAT IS THIS CHURCH OF ENGLAND...?

Canterbury Cathedral

In The Times in London, which you cannot read without a subscription, Diarmaid MacCullough writes about the latest statement from the Church of England on the proposal to allow same-sex civil marriage in England.  Of course, I cannot copy the entire article for a number of reasons, but I'll take the risk of giving you a few snippets:

So “the Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony”. That’s odd, I thought that I was part of the Church of England and I can and do support the proposal. And I know quite a few other people who thought that they were part of the Church of England and they support it too.

So what is this Church of England that doesn’t? It doesn’t actually sign its name to the 13-page public submission it has just made to the Government’s consultation on marriage equality, but it is not difficult to ferret out what it is.

It is a curious theme park called Bishop World. This is a collection of middle-aged to elderly males, some gay (though they don’t like to say so in public), some heterosexual (and they remind us of that all the time in public). They have a penchant for wearing mitres, sitting on committees and talking to each other. They are ably assisted by a small group of lawyers and civil servants, again for the most part remarkably male. A high fence protects the environs of Bishop World, so none of the inmates are troubled by opinions from the distressing wilderness beyond its bounds. Within their defences, nevertheless, they are anxious, insecure creatures, who worry incessantly about the breakdown of society.

I hesitate to post the link where I found the entire article, but if you Google the first words of the piece and the author's given name, you should find it.  I would not want to vacation at Bishop World Theme Park.

Geaux, Diarmaid - er - Sir Diarmaid!

FURTHER COMMENTARY ON CHURCH OF ENGLAND STATEMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Here in PDF format is the Church of England's statement in response to the Home Office Consultation on Equal Civil Marriage, if you'd like to read it all.  The very first paragraph of The Church's understanding of marriage made me smile.

1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman. 

 Well, there's sticky matter of divorce and remarriage, which is permitted by the church despite its understanding of marriage as a "lifelong union of one man with one woman," which seems to me to undermine their case against same-sex civil marriage from the very beginning.

Moving on...

Tim Ellis, Suffragan Bishop of Grantham:

‘...in what way can the statements of the prelates be taken to be the mind of the Church of England in this and other related matters?’ For, in truth, the bishops in the media have not spoken for me or the way in which I understand this thorny matter and, I suspect, they do not speak for a sizeable minority or even majority with the life of the Church. However, it is possible that I will soon be approached by the local media to defend the position taken up by my colleagues and the pressure will be on to ‘toe the line’.

Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

The authors hammer away on the alleged "complementarity" of the sexes as a necessary component of marriage without apparently recognizing either the circular nature of that argument or the dangerous tendency towards Christological heresy inherent in its anthropology. The circular nature of the argument is: “Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman are of different sexes.” This is, of course, merely restating the premise. The more dangerous, and heretical, trend of this argument lies in the suggestion that the sex difference implies a different order of being for men and women. This is known as sexism, and it undercuts the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. One would think the church might be more sensitive to that issue, though one wonders how many English bishops actually believe the doctrine.

Alan Wilson, Suffragan Bishop of Buckingham:

The mightiest act of God is his commandment to love him as we love our crooked neighbour with all our crooked heart. It’s shockingly unconditional. Someone wrote to me last month to say it beggared his belief that a bishop should think that “Love thy neighbour as thyself” applied to homosexuals. It beggars this bishop’s belief that anyone should think that it doesn’t.

Themethatisme at conscientisation:

There is the biological usage of complementarity, (not definition) and 'tis this, that is liberally sprinkled through the document as the Bishops seek a good legalistic euphemism for saying men's bits are designed to fit ladies bits and you shouldn't be doing anything else with that arrangement. Which owes more to the traditional definition of the word in which 'This port complements the stilton' or 'that handbag really complements those shoes'.  The two becoming one and being something else, a new ensemble, a new flavour, a fresh expression.

I've suggested a rather long reading assignment for two reasons: The first is that I believe all four posts are worth reading whole and entire.  The second is that three out of the four bloggers are Church of England, all but Tobias, and the statement claims to speak for the church.  Since the statement was released unsigned, the posts quoted and linked above make it clear that whoever put together the statement does not speak for ALL members of the Church of England.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Despite the headline, I should rather say a few persons in high places in the Church of England claim to speak for the entire church in the matter.

Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the church claimed in a potentially explosive submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage, which closes on Thursday.

To get the churches out of the marriage business altogether sounds like a good idea rather than an explosion to me.  France does it rather well, with the religious ceremony of blessing (if desired) following the legal marriage in the registry office.  But I digress.

I'll let the English speak.

Giles Fraser is "spitting blood".

The Church of England says it is against gay marriage. Not in my name

I am furious about this ridiculous and unrepresentative statement from the Church of England on gay marriage
....

The church is no more a cartel of moral wisdom. And those of us who still stick with it – though there are days like today when this is increasingly hard – do so in the hope that it can be called back to a deeper moral seriousness that is not in hoc to bourgeois notions of respectability and prejudice.

Read the entire opinion piece.  As you see, Giles does not mince words.

Colin Coward is upset (to say the least!).

I woke this morning to the R4 Today programme’s news headlines about the Church of England’s response to the Government’s equal marriage consultation. I felt so angry. The Church has achieved another set of disastrous headlines thanks to its ill-considered submission. The Church looks like an institution in panic and crisis, terrified that the lesbian and gay hordes are about to breach the defences and destroy marriage in one decisive strategic move.

As you may or may not know the Danish Parliament recently approved same-sex marriages in churches in Denmark.

Layanglicana says, "Bring on the Vikings!" 

I know the first Viking invasion gave them rather a bad name (for raping, looting and pillaging, not to put too fine a point on it).

But that was after they had been cooped up for weeks in a long boat. The 21st century version would, I am sure, choose Easy Jet, and  be only slightly irritable as a result. A pint or two of lager and half a roasted sheep ought to mollify them sufficiently to be able to deal with the powers that be at Lambeth. And after all we don’t want them too amenable, the whole idea is to let them show who is boss.

There you have it - the word from England.

As a humble former colonial, I have a nerve to even think of offering an opinion, much less post on the matter on my wee blog, but here goes.  What in heaven's name does the 13 page document sent to the English Parliament have to do with the Gospel imperative of The Two Great Commandments to love God and love our neighbor and the Golden Rule to do as we would be done to?  Archbishops and senior bishops of the Church of England, answer me that.

UPDATE: Another voice from England - Erika in the comments...

the real disaster is what the publication has said to the members of the CoE itself.

- a small group of us claims the right to make public pronouncements on your behalf.

- we do not have to stick to the truth if it doesn't suit us. You may remember that we strongly opposed civil partnerships, but we will now launch a PR campaign trying to make those who don't remember this believe that we actually love gay people in a very cuddly way.

- we believe that everyone in this land should be bound by our definition of marriage, all the 98% of people who don't go to church but who are included in our elevated idea of ourselves as ministering to everyone in our parishes. And so we reserve the right to define marriage for all other faiths too and for all agnostics and atheists.

- we do not need to make the slightest warm pastoral noise about caring about the spiritual wellbeing of gay people. We can just casually dismiss their relationships as friendships without content. If we really believed that God creates them like this but that for some reason, baby Jesus cries if they hitch up, we would be full of sympathy and we would try what we could to make their God imposed loneliness more bearable. But, actually, we don't give a stuff as long as they don't threaten our order of things and keep quiet in their sinful moral morass.

THAT is what this document is saying and it's saying it to its own members.
Which is why I, for one, have had enough and have now left the church. I shall watch it with mild interest from the sidelines to see if it ever joins civilised society again.

Hear, hear!  

BISHOP ALAN COOKS THE NOT-SO-VERY-ROTTEN EGG

(1) “This isn't, of course, about gender. Perish the Thought.”
This assertion is a lie. It is, and it always was. Discriminatory is as discriminatory does. It is not for the discriminator to judge the matter, based on their intentions, but those discriminated against, based on what actually happens. All else is illusion.

(2) “This is about theology not discrimination.”
This assertion is a lie. However you tart it up, Trevor Huddleston showed us years ago, discriminating is actually a theological assertion. Imagine, as I have attempted sincerely to do, that there is a theology that justifies treating women, against their will and calling, as inferior. I can't conceive of such a thing, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment. What is the difference between that noble theology and cultural prejudice dressed in voodoo? At no time in the past five years has anyone showed me. All that unites reactionaries in this matter seems to be a cultural prejudice against seeing women in positions of authority, reinforced by a reactionary subculture. It is every bit as much drawn from the contemporary world’s values as progressive aspiration. It’s just drawn from the reactionary quarter of them.

Read the entire excellent post.

If the amendments to the legislation on women bishops from the House of Bishops were not so tragic for the Church of England, I could view the entire enterprise as farce.  42 of the 44 dioceses have spoken that they want women bishops.  General Synod has voted for women bishops, and yet the senior bishops in the church do not get the message.  As Bishop Alan says:

Many of our senior men probably thought on Monday that all they were doing was giving the women what they wanted whilst being as nice as possible to the other lot.

It appears to me that the House of Bishops plays a game of chicken with the members of Synod, but perhaps, as Alan says, many of them are merely clueless. The diocesan synod votes and the vote in GS should have put the senior bishops a bit more in touch with the rest of the church.

From Thinking Anglicans:

The Synod has no power to amend the legislation further but can adjourn the Final Approval debate and invite the House of Bishops to reconsider the amendments that they have made. If such an adjournment motion were passed the House would have to meet again-and would at that point have power to make further amendments- before the Final Approval debate was resumed. An adjournment motion in July would mean that the further meeting of the House and the resumption of the Final Approval debate would have to happen at a later date. The earliest that the General Synod might be able to conclude the Final Approval Stage in that eventuality would, therefore, be in November.

There you have it.

NOT ALL THAT ROTTEN

I have not done a post on the amendments from the Church of England House of Bishops' meeting (all male, of course!) to the legislation on women bishops which will be presented at General Synod, because I could not understand the meaning of the amendments from the poorly-written press release.  As I've said elsewhere, my initial reaction was that it appeared the writer(s) of the press release attempted to send out a double message to soothe both sides, with the result that the release does not make much sense.

Bishop Alan Wilson courageously provides a priceless explication for us, titled "Swimmin with the Wimmin part 94".  The title alone is worth noting.  A brief quote, and you can read the rest over at Alan's blog.

The result, in true C of E fashion, is a curate’s egg, but probably not such a rotten one as to send the whole process around again in five years time.

From Thinking Anglicans:

WATCH (Women and the Church) is deeply disappointed to hear that the all male House of Bishops has, in a closed meeting, decided to make two amendments to the draft legislation on women bishops that had been so carefully crafted after years of debate and scrutiny from all sides and had commanded the support of 42/44 dioceses across the Church of England.

Read the rest of their press release, which makes much more sense to me than release from the House of Bishops meeting.

I remain in the dark as to how the amended legislation will play out in practice if it passes all three houses of GS with a two-thirds vote.  We shall see.

IGNORE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT AT GENERAL CONVENTION?

Here I am banging on again about the pernicious Anglican Covenant. I'd heard murmurings, which are now more than murmurings, because the talk is now very public, of a move to introduce a resolution at General Convention to ignore the covenant.  Yes, indeed, it's true.  Lionel Diemel says:

One proposed strategy for General Convention is for the church only to affirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion, saying nothing at all about the Anglican Covenant.

Our courageous sisters and brothers in the Church of England, the 'mother' church, faced down the opposition of two archbishops, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, and 79.79% of the bishops in the church to defeat the covenant in the Church of England.  And yet it is suggested that we in The Episcopal Church ignore the covenant.  I don't understand.

Not only do I see such a resolution as cowardly, but, seconding Lionel Diemel, as arrogant.  The Episcopal Church is often criticized for its individualism, for 'going its own way' without regard for other churches in the Anglican Communion, and such a resolution from GC would only reinforce the opinion that TEC is insufficiently community minded.  As I see it, to ignore the covenant, to pretend that it's not there, would be an insult to all the churches who have taken a stand, whether the vote was to adopt, accede to, subscribe to, give an 'amber light' to, or reject the covenant.  Further, to ignore the covenant would be an affront to all the churches which will declare a position on the covenant in the future.  The proponents of the covenant might very well view ignoring the covenant as worse than rejecting the covenant.

I've heard justifications for the stance of pretending the covenant is not there run the gamut from a desire to stay at the table to a fervent wish to continue in relationship with other churches in the communion.  I want those things, too, and I contend that the concerns are unjustified, especially now that the covenant has been rejected in the Church of England. Is the Church of England still at the table?  Will the Church of England continue in relationships with churches in the communion?  The vote by the English church to reject the covenant is a major game changer.  Shall we also pretend that the rejection didn't happen?

Read our English friend Lay Anglicana, and watch the video posted by Laura, who strove mightily to defeat the Anglican Covenant in England, and see if you still think ignoring the covenant is a viable option.  I could name many other English friends who worked tirelessly to bring down the same odious document that some in TEC will ask the convention to ignore.
 
From Lay Anglicana:

But word reaches me that these good manners may stand in the way of common sense at the TEC General Convention to be held from July 5-12 in Indianapolis: agreeing with me that the current ‘sorry state of things entire’ of the Anglican Covenant is such that it definitely counts as unpleasant, and being unwilling to intrude on private grief,  some say it might be best not to discuss it all, and simply sweep it under the carpet.

Siren voices! Please, fellow Anglicans, do not listen to them! We have managed in the Church of England, diocesan synod by painful diocesan synod, to reject it. But the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion regards this as merely a little local difficulty. Is he burying his head in the sand like the man in the YouTube video which illustrates this post? That is a matter of opinion.

Hear, hear!

TRUST, MONIES, GOSPEL - DIOCESE OF SOUTHWARK

Adrian Worsfold, at Pluralist Speaks, writes of the recent news from the Southwark Good Stewards Trust, in the Diocese of Southwark in the Church of England, which believes itself to be misrepresented:

...the Directors have issued the below Frequently Asked Questions, ahead of the official Trust launch and reception. The Directors hope that the FAQ's may be of interest to members of churches of other Dioceses where there is also widespread concern about revisionism.

The first question is of particular interest:

1.  Does the Trust mean one particular tradition of the church will just be serving themselves?

No.  The Trust is open to applications from any Incumbent within the Diocese who can genuinely sign The Jerusalem Declaration (see below). 

I will not cover the FAQs one by one, but regarding the first question, is The Jerusalem Declaration another creed?  Signing the declaration seems to be the ticket to get in the door of the Trust.  According to The Jerusalem Declaration:

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

But that's not quite enough to assure the exclusion of Anglicans who accept the historic Creeds, but may yet be categorized as revisionists.

What will this mean for the Diocese of Southwark and other dioceses in the Church of England, should the concept spread, as it is likely to do?  The member churches will still be part of the diocese, according to the answer to question No. 5.

5.  Is the Trust ‘separatist’ ?

The Trust seeks to support parish churches of the Diocese which are orthodox, whatever their particular tradition.   There is nothing separatist about it.  

Is the intention to take over the Church of England from within?  Is this the beginning of an attempt to turn the Church of England into an evangelical fundamentalist church?  But wait!  Will the alliance between the two groups, fundamentalist evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, hang together?

Further in answer to question No. 5:

Rather its intention as its name implies, is that members should be 'Good Stewards’ of the monies the Lord has given them, and be ‘Good Stewards’ of the apostolic Gospel which  has been entrusted to them, within a particular Diocese, for the sake of the salvation of future generations.  

 So.  It's about the monies and the Gospel with the monies mentioned first.  How will the monies of the Diocese of Southwark be affected as churches ally with the Trust?

As you see, I have a few questions that are not answered by the FAQ list on the website of the Trust.  I assume that the authorities in the Diocese of Southwark may have a few questions of their own.

'THE CHURCH SHOULD BLAZE A TRAIL....'

From the Church Times in England:

AS A committed, Bible-believing Chris­tian, I am ashamed and ap­palled by the debate about gay marriage. My views are not those of my son, who is gay and who is now an atheist, but result from some ten years of reading, prayer, dis­cussion, and serious thought.

My son came out at the age of 20, having spent much of his previous ten years knowing that he was not growing up to feel attracted to girls, but to boys. I don’t think he even knew the word “gay” at the be­ginning of this process, but he knew that he was growing up differently.

 I am now convinced that homo­sexuality is a developmental condition that is not amenable to change at any psychological level; it is not a matter of choice; and is something that has caused many boys and girls to live in shame and fear from their early teens onwards. I know that my son had no access to other gay people through his adolescence, and that it was only at university that he was able to talk this through with hetero­sexual friends, finally coming to the conclusion that he was gay.

We, the Church, over centuries have perpetrated a great wickedness on these children and developing adults, forcing many to live by deceit, in failed heterosexual marriages, and even in an inability to form rela­tionships because of their own private hell.

At least the gay-rights cam­paigners have had the courage to stand up and work on some sort of social change. It is a pity that the Church did not do this in the first place.

A mother's cry from the heart, surely, and a cry that should touch other hearts and perhaps melt a few hearts of stone.  With great courage, Linda names wickedness for what it is.  With the mess that straight folks have made of marriage today, who are we to disrespect couples of the same sex who wish to love and cherish one another in faithful, committed relationships?  Who are we to decree that these couples may not call their relationships marriage?  And where is the church in all this?  Why are the civil authorities in England leading the way?  Linda speaks to her Church of England, but here in the Episcopal Church in the US, we still have a way to go, although we are headed in the right direction.   As Linda says, 'The Church should blaze a trail....'

H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

FINAL CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE ON ANGLICAN COVENANT

Today sees the last two dioceses to vote on the Covenant. As the proposal has already been defeated the issue cannot return to General Synod until the summer of 2015 at the earliest.

Newcastle Against

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For:  8,  Against:  18,  Abstained: -
Laity        For: 14,  Against: 15,  Abstained: 0

York  For 

Bishops  For: 4,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 26,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 0
Laity        For: 38,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 1

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 16

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 26

Thanks to Paul Bagshaw at Not the Same Stream.

TWO DIOCESES IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND VOTE FOR ANGLICAN COVENANT

Chichester  For 

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: -
Clergy     For: 29,  Against: 9,  Abstained: -
Laity        For: 39,  Against: 25,  Abstained: -

Southwell and Nottingham  For 

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 15,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 0
Laity        For: 31,  Against: 6,  Abstained: 1

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 18

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 25

There are 2 dioceses yet to vote: Newcastle and York next Saturday, 28 April.

From Paul Bagshaw at Not the Same Stream.

GOOD NEWS FROM BISHOPS

From the presidential address of Archbishop Barry Morgan of the Church in Wales:

Lambeth 1998, as I said, accepted homosexual orientation – what some have regarded as "a natural attribute for some people," that is, a natural predisposition toward people of the same sex –which has only been fully understood fairly recently.  Even so, the Lambeth answer was to separate orientation from practice and commend celibacy.
 
But can celibacy be imposed?  Shouldn't it be freely undertaken as a personal vocation by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike?  As Rowan Williams once put it, "anyone who knows the complexities of the true celibate vocation, would be the last to have any sympathy with the extraordinary idea that sexual orientation is an automatic pointer to a celibate life: almost as if celibacy before God is less costly, even less risky to the homosexual than the heterosexual."  And is not separating mind and body or feelings or orientation from practice a kind of dualism which the church has condemned in the past since human beings are a unified whole and cannot be compartmentalised in such a way.  If that is true of humanity in general, why should we expect people of a homosexual disposition to be singled out in this way?
....

If the legislation to allow civil marriage is passed, I cannot see how we as a church, will be able to ignore the legality of the status of such partnerships and we ought not to want to do so.  There is a further complication and that is that just as the Government only initially allowed civil partnerships outside religious premises but has now extended that provision to include them, the same may happen as far as what they call civil marriage is concerned and indeed some argue that it is against European law to separate the two since there is no distinction in law in this country between marriage in church and marriage in a register office.

The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support....  It is a discussion we need to have.

 Dr Morgan, in a brilliant stroke, quotes the wise words of the previous Archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams, on the folly of the imposition of a mandate to the celibate life on anyone, including those with a same-sex orientation.

Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, in his post referring to Barry Morgan's address says:

Therefore the highest duty of the Church is not to preserve institutions, but to be, simply and completely, good news. The gospel isn't “good news/bad news” or “good news as long as you buy it properly.” It isn’t even “what would Jesus do?” It’s “What is Jesus actually doing through the whole creation, and trying to do through us if only we got real?” 

Jesus referred marriage back to the way God actually made us. Marriage is a gift of God in creation that strengthens community and expresses divine love — that’s what’s meant by calling it “sacramental.” 

In fact a very small but significant proportion of every human population is gay. If some of these people want to build stable faithful relationships based on love, that has to be a good thing. Love is love wherever it is found. We know it by its fruits, not its origins. But the fruits reveal the origin. God is love and those who live in love live in God and God lives in them. This is the good news.

Amen to the Good News from the bishops, arch- and plain.  Alan Wilson has long been a breath of fresh air and a voice of sanity within the circle of bishops in the Church of England, and, thankfully, his is no longer a lone voice. 

GIVE IT UP PLEASE!

From the Guardian:

A leading member of the Church of England who believes some gay people can be counselled to suppress or possibly change their sexual orientation is helping to select the next archbishop of Canterbury.

Glynn Harrison, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Bristol University, is on the Crown Nominations Commission, which will recommend a successor to Rowan Williams, to be approved by the prime minister and the Queen. His role on the 16-strong commission has alarmed some liberal Anglicans who fear it could deepen divisions over homosexuality in a church riven by the issues of holding gay civil ceremonies in churches and the consecration of gay bishops.

In a statement through the church, Harrison stated that he did not believe in a "gay cure" and had himself never offered formal counselling or therapy.

A non-denial denial, methinks.

I assume Professor Glynn Harrison' presence on the commission is to provide 'balance' as the Faux News cable channel provides 'fair and balanced news'.  Sometimes there are not two rational sides in a situation to present to provide balance, and when that is the case, then why search out a phony balance?

From the American Psychological Association:

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

The church should be leading the way advocating for the removal of the stigma attached to LGTB sexual orientation, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the way of justice and equality by secular institutions. 
 
 H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

'WHAT NEXT?" - ALAN PERRY

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada ponders the next step for the churches of the Anglican Communion after the rejection of the Anglican Covenant by the Church of England.  As the Episcopal Church in the US will meet in General Convention in July of this year and and will be addressing proposed resolutions concerning the covenant, Alan's post seems to me a helpful addition to preparatory material.

I don't know how much time, effort or money has been expended on the Anglican Covenant proposal, but I think it is safe to say “a lot”. And this proposal has distracted Anglicans to a significant degree from pursuing, both other avenues of building relationships, and our primary mission of living out the Gospel in our various contexts. Now that the project is stalled, perhaps irretrievably, in the Church of England, how much more time, energy and money should the rest of us be expending on this proposed Covenant?

What should those outside England do?

It's really up to each Church to decide how it's going to deal with the proposed Covenant, but I see four options at this point:

1. Continue with the process of considering and adopting the proposed Covenant;
2. Continue to consider the Covenant, but adopt it conditionally such that an Act of Synod adopting the Covenant does not come into effect until the Church of England adopts it;
3. Suspend the process of considering the Covenant until it is clear what the Church of England is going to do next;
4. Adopt a resolution rejecting the Covenant.

Please don't stop with my short quote from Alan's post.  Read it all.

Whatever resolutions the Episcopal Church passes or does not pass, I fervently hope we will not spend "a lot" of time, effort, and money on such an inferior piece of work, especially now that the "mother" church has disposed of it.