OUR LEGS ARE NOT SO WHITE

Giles Fraser on General Synod of the Church of England:

Picture the scene. The summer meeting at the University of York is focused on a large modernist theatre surrounded by a lake. The lake is full of geese who cover the whole place in distinctive pellets of poo. The theatre is often baking hot, encouraging the gathered Anglicans to dress informally, which is often an excuse for shorts, milky white legs and sandals. Body odour can be a bit of an issue too.

Where I live in south Louisiana, the weather in the summer is so often hot that folks here dress informally in their shorts more often, so, while the legs may not be more shapely, they are not so white.

Then there is all the code language. You have to use the word "mission" a lot (a word so general it has come to be all but meaningless)

That Giles mentions the all-but-meaninglessness of the word "mission" makes me feel not quite so crazy for tuning out whenever I hear the word used by people in reference to church plans and policies. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND VOTES NO TO WOMEN BISHOPS

Paul Owen at the Guardian live-blogging the debate at General Synod of the Church of England on a measure to allow women bishops:

That’s it. The Church of England has voted not to introduce female bishops – its biggest decision for 20 years.

It was a long day of debate, with over 100 speeches made and some points of view repeated a number of times. Broadly, speakers for the motion wanted women to be treated equally in the church and wanted Anglicans to set an example to the secular world in overcoming their differences. Those against felt the concept of female bishops could not be reconciled with scripture, and felt that compromise, for that reason, was not a Christian value.

Some on both sides felt the compromise measure before the General Synod – under which women would become bishops but could delegate authority to a male bishop if their parish requested it – meant the motion was fatally flawed. Others, such as Justin Welby, who will take over from Rowan Williams as Arch[b]ishop of Canterbury in the new year, said the compromise was “as good as we can get”. He urged the synod to vote for the motion. Earlier, Williams, also in favour, had said he wanted the world to look at the Church today and say: “That looks like Jesus Christ."

That’s it from me. Thanks for your comments.

How sad.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bishop Alan for the picture.

BISHOP ALAN WILSON IN THE COMMENTS AT HIS BLOG

Bishop Alan Wilson said...

I don't know why the English always have to find a more complicated and painful way of doing simple things. It's clear as a pikestaff from everywhere else in the world that the kindest, as well as the least histrionic way to do this is just to do it. As John Harvey Jones used to say, you can only get shot once. Then sit down with everyone it impacts and go to the greatest lengths possible, with great kindness, to help them in any way that's possible. This is all the more so in England because the variety among the tiny company of people impacted negatively is immense - for some episcopacy is actually of little to no account, to others it's the core of their ecclesiology, for some it's about preaching, for others the Eucharist. Listen carefully to the real issue and then respond kindly to real issues as they arise. That way everybody ends up in the best possible place.

Bishop Alan's suggestion for a simple and straightforward way for the Church of England to include women in the order of bishops seems so eminently sensible to me. The CofE is not my church, and perhaps I should not even express an opinion, but the process at General Synod is painful to observe.

Alan is area Bishop of Buckingham in the Anglican Diocese of Oxfordshire.

ODDS AND ENDS FROM THE PRESS ON THE WOMEN BISHOPS DEBATE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

From 'When is a bishop not a bishop?' by Nelson Jones in the New Statesman:

The big decision won't be taken until July: this week, the Synod has been debating proposals aimed to protect male clergy who oppose women's ordination from finding themselves under the authority of a female bishop. Rowan Williams, introducing this quintessentially half-baked compromise, spoke today of seeking to respect the "theological integrity" and ensure the "pastoral continuity" of opponents. But his proposal hasn't gone down well with many in the church, who argue that it would make women bishops inferior to their male counterparts; and in any case it doesn't go far enough to satisfy diehard opponents.

So. Defenseless male clergy in the Church of England need protection from the invasion of women bishops into the heretofore all-male, pure line of bishops who watch over them, and Rowan wants the clergy protected.

From 'Fratricidal tensions at the Church of England Synod' by Michael White in the Guardian:

If you think David Cameron frets about his uppity Lib Dem coalition partners and loses sleep over eurosceptic Tory hooligans at Westminster, trot across Parliament Square to Church House this week and weep for a leader with serious problems and conflicting thinktank advice that goes back 2,000 years.
....

In fairness to the Synodistas, both sides were studiously civil and constantly invoked the importance of mutual tolerance and their cherished Anglican heritage, which is strong on inclusivity and diversity. Wishy-washy C of E, as the more authoritarian papal model might put it. The Vatican would have handed this lot over to the Inquisition via rendition the moment it heard a bishop saying "bishops do not dissent lightly from the views of their archbishops".

In her article in the Guardian, titled 'Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops', Riazat Butt summarizes the proceedings at General Synod and makes the most sense for me, although I'm still not entirely clear on the substance of the agreement reached today.

The archbishops of Canterbury and York has avoided humiliation in the Church of England's law-making body, the General Synod, by putting off a split over the ordination of women bishops.

The synod voted against measures that would have given traditionalists the legal right to ignore the leadership of women bishops. The proposal by the Manchester diocesan synod would have accepted that parishes opposed to female diocesan bishops could be ministered by male bishops.

But the synod also rejected an attempt by the Southwark diocese in London to ensure bishops press on with legislation to introduce women bishops.

H/T to Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans for the links to the press reports.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND SYNOD DEBATES WOMEN BISHOPS

From the BBC:

A compromise to try to meet objectors' concerns will be presented by the Manchester Diocesan Synod at a meeting of the Church's ruling council later.
....

It would give a greater measure of autonomy to male bishops appointed to oversee traditionalist parishes.

But many supporters of women bishops oppose the plans, saying they would make women second-class bishops.
....

The intention is to meet traditionalists' objections that a male bishop appointed to look after them would derive his authority from the female bishop who appointed them.
....

Many conservative Evangelicals also oppose women bishops because they believe the Bible requires male "headship" in the Church and in the family.

How insulting, patronizing, and downright tedious to read of this sort of nonsensical discussion in this year of 2012. For heaven's sake, the Church of England has had women priests for 20 years! How long, O Lord!

'CHURCH OF ENGLAND REPORTS ON ACNA'

From Thinking Anglicans:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.

19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the Anglican famil

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

There you have it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A GOOD LETTER TO THE CHURCH TIMES FROM TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND BISHOPS

From the Church Times:

From the Rt Revd Dr John Saxbee and the Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby

Sir, — Whichever side of the argument you are on there are grounds for real concern about the way the debate about it is progressing. It cannot be good to learn, as we do, that many bishops who are against the Anglican Covenant don’t want to say for fear of seeming disloyal, that diocesan synods are “debating” the issue without hearing both sides of the argument equally presented, and that there is so much boredom and weariness about the whole issue.

This is a major proposal with potentially serious consequences for this and future generations of Anglican Christians, and for those ecumenical partners with whom we are in conversation. Nothing will be worse than for the Covenant to be yawned through at a July Synod preoccupied with debating the ordination of women as bishops, passed and then put in a drawer — only for us to discover that those who now brand it “toothless” then use it and propel the Communion into a litigious and factious future.

The Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear in his Advent letter that such is not his purpose. But the proposed Covenant cannot now escape the identity it has acquired as an instrument of exclusion. He also asks what is the alternative; we respond that the alternative to having a Covenant is not having one, and this is a time to hold fast to Anglicanism’s inherited culture of inclusion and respectful debate which is our way of dealing with difference rather than require assent to procedures and words that have already shown themselves to be divisive.

In short, if we can agree it we don’t need it and if we need it we won’t agree it. We believe that the Covenant is to be resisted. But, above all, our plea is for a debate that is candid, even-handed, and open. If it comes to the General Synod, it should do so as its seriousness deserves, as the principal business.

JOHN SAXBEE
PETER SELBY

The Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to railroad the Anglican Covenant through the Church of England General Synod quickly, before too many people in the church have a chance to study the document closely and note what harm may result for the Anglican Communion and for the Church of England if the covenant is adopted. The Anglican Communion Office sends out only pro-covenant materials, which is not right and not fair, because the members of Synod need to hear from both proponents and opponents of the document in order to vote wisely.

Thank you, Bishops Saxbee and Selby for speaking out. Isn't it time for the other bishops who doubt the wisdom of adopting the covenant to lend their voices to the debate? I like very much the answer the bishops give to Archbishop Rowan's statement that there is no alternative to the covenant:

...we respond that the alternative to having a covenant is not having one and this is the time to hold fast to Anglicanism's inherited culture of inclusion and respectful debate....

Amen and amen!

Thanks to my English friend, Neal Terry (aka themethatisme), who sent me the letter which can now be viewed on the website of the Church Times.

STATEMENT FROM THE NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION

No Anglican Covenant Coalition
Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity
noanglicancovenant.org
30 NOVEMBER 2010

Observations on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address and the Anglican Covenant Debate in the Church of England General Synod, November 2010

In his Presidential Address on 23 November 2010, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams presented a message of fear and gloom to the Church of England General Synod. He suggested that, if the Synod did not accept the Anglican Covenant, we could witness the “piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion.” The “risk and reality of such rupture [of some aspects of communion] is already there, make no mistake,” he said. “Historic allegiances cannot be taken for granted.” If we try to carry on as usual, he warned, there is a danger of creating “new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly.”

The Archbishop’s message was clear—be afraid of rejecting the Covenant. It is the only lifeboat in the troubled sea of Anglicanism, and doing nothing or being idealistic is not an option. It is particularly ironic that Dr. Williams painted a picture of a frightening Anglican dystopia should the Covenant fail, as he and other supporters of the Covenant have been quick to accuse Covenant sceptics of “scaremongering.” It is also surprising, both in this speech and in the subsequent debate, that concerns were raised about the decline of the role of the Church of England, as well as references to its being “the mother church” that needs to set an example, whereas Covenant sceptics have been accused of being “Little Englanders.”

The interpretation that most people put on the speech was that Dr. Williams saw the Covenant as the only way to keep the GAFCON Primates and their allies in the Anglican Communion. Ironically, even as the 24 November debate on the Covenant was going on, GAFCON issued its “Oxford Statement,” which rejected the Covenant as being “fatally flawed” and insisted on the more conservative Jerusalem Statement as the foundation of international Anglicanism.

The Archbishop asserted that the Covenant is not “a tool of exclusion and tyranny.” “To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands,” he insisted. It is difficult to see, however, how a document that, in the words of the Windsor Report, is to “make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion” is not coercive, and it is likewise difficult to see how enforcing “relational consequences” on a church that might take a “controversial action” is not a punishment. Bishop John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, put it like this:

Anglicanism has been described as a fellowship of civilised disagreement. Well I leave you to judge whether a two-tier Communion with first and second division members answers to that description of civilised disagreement. It frankly feels like we will be sending sincere and faithful Anglicans to stand in the corner until they have seen the error of their ways and can return to the ranks of the pure and spotless.

The Archbishop spoke of loyalty and catholicity. Apparently, he thinks that belief and practice should be uniform across the Communion. Otherwise, the Church—he consistently speaks of the Anglican Church—is disordered, and if the Church is disordered, then the faith is disordered and the mission of the Church is compromised. If necessary, personal convictions need to be sacrificed for the greater good of the Church, and those who refuse are disloyal. In reality, of course, there are only Anglican churches, and many, unlike Dr. Williams, do not want to create a worldwide Anglican Church.

Uniformity will be facilitated by affording the Standing Committee greater powers. This is a group of fifteen people who will act as judge and jury when conflicts arise. Section 4.2.4 of the Covenant states:

The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the matter at question and those relational consequences which may result.

During the debate, lawyer Jacky Humphreys confirmed this, saying, “It’s a very gentle way of saying it, but it is a determination of the issue; that is, a judicial decision.”

Although Dr. Williams says that the tendency of the last hundred years has been to centralise, increasing the number of “Instruments of Communion,” the No Anglican Covenant Coalition sees this increasing centralisation as a radical departure for Anglicanism. The Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting have been instituted to discuss and share ideas, not to impose a single view on the whole Communion. The Covenant speaks of the Provinces as being family members, and this is perhaps an apt metaphor. However, Dr. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes spoke about the misuse of this term in the document:

As a University Chaplain I see, all too often, the emotional damage done when a family puts conditions on their love, on their support and on the continuation of relationships. “Relational consequences” sounds very chilling indeed. We are told that the Covenant sets out the framework for family relationships. But what sort of family lives by a covenant, with “relational consequences” for breaches of the rules?

During the debate, the vote on the Covenant became a vote of confidence in the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus was the integrity of the synodical process compromised, with speeches that centred not on the document that was being considered, but on how Dr. Williams needed support and how he knew better than the Synod what would be good for the Anglican Communion. This was consistent with Dr. Williams’ Presidential Address, with its assertion that the Covenant “represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views,” as though theologians also know what is better for the Communion than do members of the General Synod.

Those who spoke against the Covenant were assured that General Synod members were not agreeing to accept the Covenant, but merely allowing the process of discussion to continue in the dioceses. By voting yes, they could at once be loyal to Dr. Williams while retaining serious reservations about the wisdom of the Covenant in its current form.

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was always a means to placate those in the Anglican Communion who were upset by the “controversial” actions of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. The Oxford Statement makes it clear, however, that that faction of the Communion will never be satisfied with unity without uniformity. Its insistence on the Jerusalem Declaration is proof that not even the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant are acceptable. It is obvious that the Fellowship of Confessing Anglican created by the GAFCON movement is intended as a separate, “pure” Anglican Communion that will include churches, such as the Anglican Church in North America, that are not part of the present Communion.

In these circumstances, the churches that subscribe to a more traditional view of Anglicanism than the Anglican vision asserted by GAFCON should abandon the Covenant, which can only divide them, and re-establish the Anglican Communion as a tolerant fellowship of autonomous national and regional churches.

Check out the No Anglican Covenant website for its wealth of information and resources. As discussions begin in the dioceses in the Church of England and around the world on the Anglican Covenant and here in the dioceses in the Episcopal Church in the US in advance of the consideration of the covenant at General Convention 2012, the material at the NACC site will be quite helpful for those of us who are opposed to the covenant to make our case.

"HOGWARTS FOR ANGLICANS"

From Rosie Harper, a newly-elected member of General Synod of the Church of England, in the Guardian:

Her Majesty the Queen, resplendent in peachy apricot, inaugurated the ninth General Synod of the Church of England in London on Tuesday.

For new synod members there was an initiation ceremony the day before. It was deemed necessary to introduce us to the inner circle of synodical process.

Central to becoming one of them is the ability to wield the magic zapper, imaginatively called the electronic voting device, and after careful coaching most of us acquired the power.
....

Maybe I had entered the world of Hogwarts for Anglicans. Church House corridors that seemed to go nowhere, pictures on the walls that winked knowingly at me. Would I be able to reconcile the dark arts of church politics and the openness and transparency of the gospel?

I should have known it would be thus. The elections were transparent as mud.
....

First came the dressing up – shivering in the cloister dressed in our academicals looking for all the world like escapees for Hogwarts, we began a very long wait in the cold. A long service in Westminster Abbey followed, and then synodical life began.
....

Dark arts or openness and transparency? The first session began with the presidential address. Our archbishop is a man of depth and integrity, not naturally given to dark arts. He spoke about the concept of a life well lived; what does that look like? A coherent Christian character; what is it? We were drawn in and wondered, beguiled by his gentle charming erudition, but everything stacked up in one direction. This was really an appeal for loyalty.
....

If you wondered where the spells were being brewed then you'd look no further than the labyrinthine corridors and committee rooms of Church House that seemingly conceal an underworld of Harry Potter gear. Down there groups huddled to plot strategy – cunning political and procedural techniques to wrong-foot their opponents.

For those of us in the US, who may be a bit confused by the workings of General Synod of the Church of England, Rosie 'splains it all. Please read the rest of her article if you desire true enlightenment.

Rosie Harper is vicar Great Missenden, chaplain to the bishop of Buckingham.

That would be Bishop Alan, the blogging bishop. Rosie is also quite attractive, which you will see if you click the link to the article. Not that Rosie's appearance has anything to do with anything....

CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD VOTE RESULTS ON THE ANGLICAN DAFT COVENANT

Bishops: For-39, Against-0, Abstentions-1

Clergy: For-145, Against-32, Abstentions-11

Laity: For-147, Against-25, Abstentions-8

The lopsided vote in General Synod in favor of the Anglican Daft Covenant is just so absolutely depressing. That such a flawed document was overwhelmingly approved after only a brief debate is astonishing to me. Although I have heard (not first hand!) that several bishops at GS had serious reservations about the document, all walked in lockstep, but for the one abstention.

The covenant will now go the the dioceses for approval and then back to Synod for final approval.

"NO THEM ONLY US"

"No Them Only Us", a double-sided sculpture/painting by Mark Titchner.

Bishop Alan Wilson gets to the heart of the matter on the wisdom of adopting the Anglican Covenant in his post titled Only us, redeemed. General Synod of the Church of England will decide on Wednesday of next week whether to adopt the covenant.

When I become a follower of Jesus Christ in baptism, when I receive the bread and wine, I am swept up personally into a process of reconciliation between heaven and earth in which all principalities and powers are disarmed, all sins forgiven, all and, in the end, every tear wiped away from all eyes. The ordinary business of worship is my point of contact, now, with that glorious reality where Christ will one day be all in all.

I really believe this stuff, and, it has, for me, unmistakable “relational consequences” of its own that are far deeper than any merely human falling out however justified. I exercise saving faith when I allow Jesus to break down barriers that divide people, not when I define them. Any label I slap on others who disgust me (what a comical concept in itself) will be torn off anyway, on the day of unveiling. Any dividing wall has been fatally undermined by the earthquake that came after Jesus died. Any protecting veil for what human beings hold, rightly or wrongly, to be holy, been torn in two.

Therefore, in the end, if we take the cross seriously, there can no longer be “us” and “them.” There is only “us,” at the foot of the cross, even though, confronted with the other people involved, some of us find that distasteful for now. (My emphasis) Defining people by their acts, gathering them into self-validating camps within which they can huddle fantasizing about their own righteousness and the opposition’s faithlessness is childish, unworthy and sub Christian. All we have to do to find healing and grace is stop doing it. And designing hidiing places where anyone can hide from the true implications of the cross is the silliest and most perilous policy for Christians to contemplate. It really is alien to our best tradition.

I really believe this stuff, too. So far as I know, Bishop Alan is the only bishop in the Church of England to publicly question the wisdom of the adoption of the covenant, which I believe to be a heroic stance on his part. A decision to stand alone amongst one's peers is not easy. I've heard, but not firsthand, that other English bishops privately express doubts about the covenant but think that they must go along and vote to adopt because Archbishop Rowan Williams wants the covenant so badly.

The words on the artwork pictured above are taken from Bill Clinton's acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention:

And so we must say to every American: Look beyond the stereotypes that blind us. We need each other - all of us - we need each other. We don’t have a person to waste, and yet for too long politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what’s really wrong with America is the rest of us - them.

Them, the minorities. Them, the liberals. Them, the poor. Them, the homeless. Them, the people with disabilities. Them, the gays.

We’ve gotten to where we’ve nearly them'ed ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them.

Substitute "every member of the Anglican Communion" for "every American" and the words serve us well at the present moment.

When I was in Leeds in England last year, I saw the sculpture pictured above in an exhibit. In my post on the exhibit, I said:

I was intrigued by the sculpture/painting the moment I read the words. It is a large block with all sides painted, taller and wider than it is thick, like a domino. At first, I thought the words were quite satisfying - if only the world was like that - but, as I thought about them more, I realized that more than one meaning was applicable.

The other interpretation of the artwork is that we close ranks and exclude "them", and we are left with only "us". We seem to be at a point of decision as to which way the Anglican Communion will go.

You know what I think: No Anglican Covenant!