The beginning of the story from USA Today:
Ruth Gledhill Religion Correspondent The Times July 9 2010 Liberal members of the House of Bishops could launch a protest on the floor of the General Synod in York The Archbishop of Canterbury is facing an unprecedented rebellion from bishops in the....
Tomorrow, other newspapers will, very likely, have the story.
UPDATE: The Guardian's editorial is well worth a read.
The Church of England now expects both the benefits of establishment and the cultural freedom of private religion. At the very least, a national church should not become disconnected from the best values of the country it serves. But as the general synod, which begins tonight, will again confirm, the Church of England is strangely unwilling to do this. It devotes a shocking amount of energy to debating the supposed inferiority of women, gay men and lesbians. These issues matter intensely to some believers inside the church, but they make it look intolerant to the much larger number of people outside it.
....
Rowan Williams...once noted: "We have a special relationship with the cultural life of our country and we must not fall out of step with it if we are not to become absurd and incredible." He said it. But the truth is that his church fell out of step long ago.
Mercy me! How does one extricate oneself from such a tangle?
And our own Jim Naughton of the Episcopal Café has his say in the Guardian.
If the synod allows the Archbishop of Canterbury to further compromise the authority of a bishop over his or her diocese in order to appease opponents of opening the episcopacy to women, I suspect the Church of England will muddle along as it always has. A church that can ignore the fact that it has gay bishops ordaining gay priests who live with gay partners, while its leaders enforce various sanctions on churches for having gay bishops who ordain gay priests with gay partners, can allow sexists to dictate the terms on which it moves toward gender equity without being undone by cognitive dissonance.
Similarly, if the synod should acquiesce in the House of Bishops' desire to embrace the Anglican Covenant, which would significantly diminish the ability of lay people to influence the Communion and effectively elevate homophobia to near creedal status, I imagine that many in the English Church–and other churches for that matter–will shrug their shoulders and carry on, living their lives the best way that they know how. They might, perhaps, be embarrassed by the bishops' attempt to re-establish an empire administered from a palace in London so long after the folly of such an enterprise was made manifest, but the average church-goer has learned to ignore church politics as a matter of self-preservation.
Ouch!
Oh, that site.
ReplyDeleteI know. It sounds silly. What's a blogger to do?
ReplyDeleteSeems Williams pigeons are coming home to roost. He has consistently sold out what, at the time of his appointment, was seen as his liberal constituency, to the advantage of uncompromisingly reactionary elements in the Church of England and in the Anglican Communion. Until recently, on the principle "always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse" [Belloc] I have thought it best to leave him be, but no longer. Would Cameron automatically accept the nomination of Sentamu, who I trust no further than I could throw him? I doubt it. There are other candidates around. Consider, for example, James Jones, bishop of Liverpool, an evangelical who underwent an astonishing conversion on the topic of homosexuality. A signatory of the 2003 letter opposing Jeffrey John, who in 2008 apologized for that action. He was also, of course, deeply involved in the problems at Wycliffe Hall, though the John apology cost him his position as chairman of that college's trustees. Seems he's an ambitious guy, so who knows what he'd do at Lambeth.
ReplyDeleteCritics of Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu say that the number of women and their supporters who will be offended if the amendment succeeds is far greater than those who will be offended if it fails. While women are unlikely to leave the Church, believing still in the possibility of transformative change, the issue threatens to make the Church of England appear so absurdly misogynistic that, combined with the fall-out over the failure to appoint Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Southwark, any new Christians will be deterred from joining the Anglican Church....
ReplyDeleteIf they are successful in defeating the amendment, Dr Williams will be under strong pressure to resign. Even if he clings on, his authority and credibility may never recover from the double debacle of defeat over women bishops and humiliation over Dr John, the Dean of St Albans.
Pigeons, meet roost?
As the Grauniad comments,
At the very least, a national church should not become disconnected from the best values of the country it serves. But as the general synod, which begins tonight, will again confirm, the Church of England is strangely unwilling to do this. It devotes a shocking amount of energy to debating the supposed inferiority of women, gay men and lesbians. These issues matter intensely to some believers inside the church, but they make it look intolerant to the much larger number of people outside it.
Astonishing. My mouth was agape as I read.
ReplyDeleteMimi, the whole Times article is over on my blog.
ReplyDeleteJames, how can you post the whole article? What about copyright and fair use?
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why no direct link ... but after getting there I do understand. I recall being furious with Ruth for once referencing the site's owner as a journalist. I didn't realize that the Times considered op ed to be journalism.
ReplyDeleteIf Ruth is correct -- and I realize that not everything in print is -- it's going to be a rough few days for the ABC.
Simon Sarmiento quoted as saying that "the position of Dr Williams was becoming increasingly untenable", yet. Thanks to James' post you can now re-write and eliminate even the indirect reference to "he-who-must-not-be-named", can't you?
ReplyDeleteRobert, welcome. I wondered whether Ruth's story was a bit hyped, but considering the events of the last few days within the Church of England, perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteLapin, I'll leave the post as is.
ReplyDeleteTomorrow is another day, and I expect there will be quite a few sources to choose from for linking.
Isn't there some English statute they can fall back on?
ReplyDeleteRmj, if only it were that simple. And if it were that simple, there would be no story, and we'd all be the poorer - or would we?
ReplyDeleteEvery denomination has its share of drama, but if you've read Trollope, you note how little has changed in the Church of England, except the names. And sometimes the names suggest Trollope. In one news story, there was a mention of Canon Ball.
The dam to Ruth Gledhill's paywall seems to have burst. Anyone know if Canon Dr Sugden's statement that for passage the measure required a 2/3 majority in all three houses is correct? If so, no leeway for weekend horse-trading.
ReplyDeleteLapin, thanks. I added an update with a link to TA to my post on Riazat Butt's piece at the Observer.
ReplyDeleteLapin, I'd like to know, too, if Sugden's reference to a 2/3 majority in all 3 houses is correct.
ReplyDelete