I AM ADDICTED TO THE PAC

All right, I admit it: I am addicted to efforts to bring down the proposed Anglican Covenant (PAC) to a crushing defeat. I find the events in the Church of England quite exciting. Who would ever have thought there was a chance of defeating the covenant in the Archbishop of Canterbury's own church? I attribute no small part of the success in diocesan synods of the Church of England voting 'no' to the efforts of NACC, of which I am a part, though I make only the smallest of contributions. Please, even if you could not care less about the Anglican Covenant, bear with me through my craziness until I wear out or until we can say, 'Mission accomplished!'

You may be curious as to why I am intensely interested and involved in the PAC. What I foresee coming out of GC of the Episcopal Church in July is some type of resolution for 'further study' of the document, so why worry? (Not that we should take anyhing for granted!) A good many of our sisters and brothers in other churches in the communion do not favor adoption of the covenant. Especially now in England with diocesan synods voting, my intention with my numerous posts is to help my English friends and others around the communion as much as possible to achieve their goal. My poor efforts may not help at all, but I have to try to put out information to assist anyone involved in voting to make informed decisions about whether to vote for or against the PAC.

The heavy hitters amongst the proponents of the Anglican Covenant are fighting for the life of the covenant in the Church of England. The vote now stands at 13 diocesan synods voting against the covenant and 9 voting in favor. This coming Saturday, six diocesan synods will vote.

Ripon and Leeds

Bath and Wells

Southwark

Carlisle

Coventry

Worcester

The members of synods have a choice on how to vote, or there would be no vote, but only theoretically according to the Anglican Communion Office, which wants the members to believe that there's only one right way to vote: in favor of adopting the PAC. Thus the ACO provides only pro-PAC material

Below is a round-up of links to posts around and about the internet giving reasons why the covenant should be defeated.

Ann Fontaine at What the Tide Brings In responds to Gregory Cameron's defense of the covenant at Fulcrum.

Benny Hazlehurst at Benny's Blog:

For example, I live in an area of Salisbury diocese where our local Bishop, Graham Kings, is vociferously in favour of the Covenant. He has devoted much time and effort in writing, speaking and arguing for it - yet in this same diocese our new Diocesan Bishop voted against the Covenant in Diocesan Synod, as did Graham Kings predecessor, Bishop Tim Thornton in his diocese of Truro.

Laura at Lay Anglicana:

But I have another suggestion. The most exciting spectator sport on offer this Saturday, 10 March 2012, is the Pro Anglican Covenant v Anti Anglican Covenant encounter being played out in another six diocesan synods across the land. These are exceptional times we live in – it has been said (rather rudely) that a deanery synod is a collection of people waiting to go home, and I have not heard that diocesan synods are any more gripping. But, if you have any imagination at all, this contest should have you on the edge of your seats with excitement.

Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

Kovenunty

with apologies to Lewis Carroll. I mean, serious apologies...

'Twas britigg, and the slithy coves
Did gyre and wimple in the nave;
All mimsy were the piscophobes
As the Pre-Lates misbehave.

You know you want to read the rest.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website provides a wealth of material advocating for rejection of the PAC, but, for the sake of balance, provides quotes and links for material in favor of the PAC. which is more than I can say for the ACO.

My suggestions to any involved in the process are:

Read the text of the PAC.

Read both pro and con arguments.

Make up your own mind as to whether the covenant is the solution to the disagreements in the Anglican Communion.

Vote accordingly.

FURTHER ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...PROF. DIARMAID MACCULLOUGH

There are other ways forward, and I urge you if you have anything to do with this process, make sure that this Covenant is voted down.

Diarmaid MacCulloch is Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. He was knighted for his service to scholarship in January 2012.

"I was ordained Deacon [in the Church of England]. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience."

From Wikipedia.

MacCulloch's two latest books are Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years and The Reformation, both of which I've read. They are excellent, and I recommend the two publications highly.

MORE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE 'NO' TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT - (ONE DIOCESE VOTES 'YES')

DIOCESE OF CHELMSFORD:

Bishops - 2 For, 1 Against, 1 Abstain

Clergy - 27 For, 29 Against, 7 Abstain

Laity - 31 For, 30 Against, 3 Abstain


DIOCESE OF HEREFORD:

Bishops - 2 For

Clergy - 15 For, 15 Against, 1 Abstain

Laity - 21 For, 23 Against, 1 Abstain

Defeated in both dioceses.

UPDATE: DIOCESE OF BRADFORD

Bishops - 1 For, 0 Against

Clergy - 15 For, 9 Against, 2 Abstain

Laity - 16 For, 15 Against, 3 Abstain

Passed in the diocese.

The total is now 13 dioceses in the Church of England voting against the covenant and 8 in favor.

FURTHER ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...

...the Church of England Diocese of Sodor & Man voted 'No'.

The count in the Church of England is now 11 dioceses against the Anglican Covenant and 7 in favor of the covenant.

Tobias Haller says of the articles in favor of the covenant posted on the Fulcrum website:

Meanwhile the folks at Fulcrum continue to produce articles I can only describe as deeply disingenuous. The most recent continues the gob-smackingly wrong analogy with marriage. How many marriage liturgies do you know that contain explicit language on the procedure to dissolve the marriage? (My emphasis)

I'm thinking...

TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE 'YES' TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

The Dioceses of Sheffield and Winchester voted to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The count is now 7 CofE dioceses voting in favor of the covenant and 10 voting against.

My dream is for the Church of England to kill off the covenant, and then the rest of us in the Anglican Communion can forget about the pernicious document and stop talking about it.

H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

Cartoon by MadPriest.

UPDATES FROM NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION

From the No Anglican Covenant Coalition:

Church of England

General Synod voted 24 November 2010 to send the Covenant to diocesan synods. If a majority of synods , the question will be brought back to General Synod for a final vote.

Diocesan votes in favor of adopting the Covenant:

Lichfield
Durham
Europe
Bristol
Canterbury

Diocesan votes against adopting the Covenant:

Truro
Birmingham
Wakefield
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich
Derby
Gloucester
(Added as per votes taken today)
Salisbury
Portsmouth
Rochester
Leicester

Since the Anglican Communion Office sends out only pro-Covenant material, our like-minded brothers and sisters in England (with a little help from their friends in other churches of the Communion) are working double time to assure that as many dioceses as possible receive material presenting the argument against the adoption of the Covenant. It seems that when the delegates to diocesan synods hear both sides of the argument, they are more likely to vote against adoption of the Covenant.

That the ACO uses its resources to present only one side of the matter in question seems not right, if the goal is a fair assessment of the sentiments of the church at large as to whether the adoption of the Covenant would be a good thing. The materials that go out to the churches of the Anglican Communion from the ACO demonstrate the same lack of balance.

"A Short Introduction” also attempts to give a more balanced view of the Covenant than is available elsewhere. As our Convenor for the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Revd. Canon Hugh Magee, has said, “Many people have complained that the official study material from the Anglican Communion Office has lacked balance and has failed to take seriously the concerns of Covenant critics.”

Further news from the NACC:

"PROFESSOR MARILYN McCORD ADAMS APPOINTED AS COALITION’S FOURTH PATRON LONDON – The Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, Moderator of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and Dr Lionel Deimel, the Coalition’s Episcopal Church Convenor, have announced the appointment of Professor Marilyn McCord Adams as a Patron of the Coalition. Professor McCord Adams joins Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby, and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch whose appointments were announced previously." (My emphases)
....

McCord Adams is Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. From 2004 to 2009, she was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University and Residentiary Canon at Christ Church, Oxford. She also served as a member of the Church of England General Synod at the time when the Anglican Covenant was being developed.

We win some, and we lose some. What happens if the results of the votes in diocesan synods in the Church of England come down with a majority against adoption?

UPDATE: Today four Church of England dioceses voted against adoption of the Covenant. My cup runneth over!

UPDATE 2: Thinking Anglicans posted the vote totals for the four dioceses.

PROTECTING THE 'DELICATE SENSIBILITIES'

Read David@Montreal's post at LGBT Vocations about his conversation with a friend in England. Here's a brief quote:

When V. called she was tears, having read a news story of the on-going antics in the British Synod over the proposed ‘protection’ of the delicate sensitivities of priests and parishes unable to accept the oversight of women bishops in the English Church.

‘Rowan is actually tying the English Church into a legislative straight-jacket to normalize misogyny within the Church.’

Sad but true. Read the rest of David's account of their heart-rending conversation, and pray for our brothers and sisters in the Church of England.

AND THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY...

...(surprise, surprise!) voted to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Lionel Deimel reports at the No Anglican Covenant blog:

Unsurprisingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own diocese has voted in favor of the Covenant and issued a press release to that effect. According to the diocese, the vote was as follows: bishops—1 for; clergy—26 for, 11 against; laity—26 for, 14 against. There were no abstentions.

Well, if we can't win 'em all, two out of three ain't bad.

'CALLING THE ARCHBISHOPS' BLUFF'

Don't blame me. Blame Mr C. In my heart, I can't blame him at all. It's way past time for the misogynistic nonsense to be over.

In the event that you don't understand Mr C's every word, the transcript is at his blog and at YouTube.

GOOD NEWS! DIOCESES OF DERBY AND GLOUCESTER SAY NO TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

The Diocese of Derby in the Church of England voted against the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Bishops: for 0; against 1 (bishop Humphrey not present)
Clergy: for 1, against 21, abstention 2
Laity. for 2, against 24, absention 1

Tobias says:

Derby has been an Indaba partner with New York and Delhi (India) and according to the Twitter feed comments on the debate the Indaba experience contributed to the negative vote. This is natural, because Indaba represents the ideals the Covenant lauds but paradoxically disables in its notorious Section 4.

Yes! May the vote in Derby inspire other dioceses in the UK to vote against the proposed covenant. The supporters of the document say that there is no alternative to the covenant, but Indaba is one better way forward for the Anglican Communion as opposed to threats of 'relational consequences' for provinces who do not toe the line, although where the line is drawn, who can say?

Update from Nicholas Knisely at The Lead:

We're also seeing reports on twitter from Lesley Crawley's stream that Gloucester has voted against the Covenant as well. We're hoping to find more information soon on that.

It is confirmed that the Diocese of Gloucester voted against the Anglican Covenant. The numbers are below.

House of Clergy YES: 16; NO: 28; 1 abstention
House of Laity YES: 14; NO: 28; 6 abstentions
House of Bishops YES: 1; 1 abstention

PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE

Andrew Brown in the Guardian:

The Church of England's House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.

From the Code of Practice suggested by the two archbishops:

The House of Bishops does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or give any impression of a 'two-tier‘ episcopate. Because of their commitment both to this principle and to the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women, they are seeking a balanced provision within the overall framework that will allow all members of the Church of England to flourish and to pursue the mission to our nation and society that we share.

We are aware as bishops that there are very difficult decisions ahead for many of our clergy and faithful; we want to honour the desire of all who wish to remain loyal Anglicans, fully engaged in this mission. And we are not thinking in terms of a time-limited provision, mindful that such a suggestion was rejected at the Revision stage of amending the legislation under discussion.

Despite the statement above, in the suggested 'Code of Practice' the two archbishops in the Church of England are quite determined to enable prejudice against women bishops and, further, to assure that prejudicial attitudes and practices remain entrenched in the church.

Andrew Brown:

The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly "flying" sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.

Funds are scarce, and yet the CofE will support three bishops to continue to ordain priests who would not consider ordination by a female bishop as valid, because, not only would the women not be real bishops, but they were never even real priests in the first place. How is the support of bishops to prevent candidates for ordination from besmirchment by the laying on of hands by a woman bishop not entrenchment of division?

Code of Practice

In the light of our discussion, the House will continue to uphold these three principles:

• Bishops will continue not to discriminate in selecting candidates for ordination on the grounds of their theological convictions regarding the admission of women to Holy Orders;

• In choosing bishops to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes for parishes requesting this provision, diocesan bishops will seek to identify those whose ministry will be consistent with the theological convictions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate underlying the Letter of Request;

• The archbishops and bishops commit themselves to seeking to maintain a supply of bishops able to minister on this basis. This will obviously have a bearing on decisions about appointments and on the role of bishops occupying the sees of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough (which will, as a matter of law, continue to exist even after the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod has been rescinded).

Andrew Brown

Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears.

This is apparently Rowan Williams's idea of justice.

The two archbishops could not get their desired legislation through the previous General Synod and are aware that church members, bishops, and clergy are embarrassed and weary of efforts to cater to the prejudicial "theological convictions" of the squeamish, so now they attempt a new tactic by calling the effort to prolong discrimination against women by a different name, a 'Code of Practice'. Do the archbishops think that by this blatant attempt at subterfuge through name change, they will get the code passed? Perhaps they will. I hope not.

UPDATE: The official title is 'The Illustrative Draft Code of Practice'. I was tempted to omit the letter 'r' from one of the words in the title. The word starts with 'D'.

STILL MORE ON JEFFREY JOHN

From Martin Reynolds in the comments to the post at Thinking Anglicans titled "Discrimination alleged in the Church of England". (What?! Can it be?! Say it isn't so!) The commentary was posted in several sequences because the number of words in a single comment is limited. I included a question by Colin Coward in the sequence, along with Martin Reynolds' answer.

There was once a Welshman and a Welshman and a Welshman ........

This increasingly acrimonious and hugely damaging story has emerged from where? And this very private letter was released by who and to what effect?

Nowhere can I find a reference to the supposed quote in the Mail on Sunday headline, and as the letter is from a lawyer, when is Jeffrey supposed to have said this? Isn't that rather key information to the story?

And who, on this Commission, would leak a legal letter - surely this is yet another breach aimed at damaging John? Did the last secret enquiry throw up a culprit who revealed the names on the shortlist for Southwark?

What seems to emerge from all this is that these letters changed hands some time ago, after the Southwark fiasco where Rowan was discovered browbeating the Commission members to reject Jeffrey. bullying some to tears.

The legal exchange must be seen in this context, the aftermath of the Southwark fiasco when it now seems clear a conservative evangelical member of the Commission revealed that John and Holtam were on the shortlist - probably the same person who has now revealed this letter. Jeffrey John would have discovered that although clearing with Rowan Williams that he was OK to allow his name to go forward for Southwark he was then stabbed firmly in the back and ruled out. This despite having be assured by Lambeth that a few years after Reading he would be acceptable as a bishop.

Cont.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:24pm GMT

So, contrary to George Pitcher's vicious little piece in the Mail, John was not saying "make me a bishop- or else!" ....He was saying: "start telling the truth, or else..." - rather a different way of looking at the facts.

Pitcher's unnecessarily nasty account does, I believe, reveal the Rowanesque spin that Lambeth has put on this whole tawdry affair. An affair that has nothing to do with "gay rights" - Jeffrey has assiduously avoided being "tainted" with any support for LGBT causes and has for ever been willing to tow the CofE party line on gay issues even to the point of giving up sex with his life-long partner! In fact Rowan has a much higher profile as a gay campaigner. But everything to do with - Misleading and duping a rather nice, devoted and faithful Churchman and Christian into believing that what bishops and archbishops say can be believed.

Jeffrey has not once given an interview or acted anyway disloyally to the Church of England - he was right to question what underpinned the appalling treatment his candidacy had in the secret dealing of the Commission - the mauling his supporters had was unsupportable, approaching abuse. That this close questioning of the actions of Rowan Williams - combined with the opprobrium rightly heaped on his shoulders when he forced John to resign from Reading and then failed to acknowledge messages from John rescinding his withdrawl - makes the Archbishop and his staff uncomfortable - indeed uncomfortable enough to attack Jeffrey - is perverse in the extreme.

What we now know is that as soon as Jeffrey (through his lawyers) started to question the actions of the appointment commission then the third Welshman in this miserable joke, the lawyer John Rees sought to justify what had already happened by writing that awful document misnamed a legal opinion claiming gay people had to repent if they wanted preferment.

It was another evil and malicious step from Rowan in his dealings with gay people since he took office.

George Pitcher says that Jeffrey's actions in questioning the duplicity of Lambeth Palace and its occupants would throw the rights of gay people back decades.

George completely fails to see that Jeffrey has never been interested in being a "gay bishop" any more than he has ever had an genuine interest in "gay rights" in the Church - Jeffrey is an advocate for honesty, faithfulness and trusting people at their word - he believes they are the mark of a true Church - that is what he is chasing.

Cont:
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:52pm GMT

Jeffrey didn't get Southwark as there was a "better man" - because of Colin Slee we all now know the truth and George Pitcher can't spin that Lambeth Palace line and expect to be believed. That's not what happened.

Now we have ended up with the horrendous "legal opinion" from Welsh lawyer John Rees - I do wonder what the future holds for the Church of England after three three Welshmen have done their worst/best.

George Pitcher mistakes who has been responsible for throwing back the place of gay people in the Church - it is not careful, diligent, cautious, courteous almost obsequious Jeffrey John - it is ambitious and determined Rowan Williams who has savaged us and demeaned us in his failing attempt at keeping the communion united and keeping ecumenical dialogue open. It is cruel, but a common characteristic, that abusers blame their victims.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:10pm GMT
....

Martin, the quote in the headline that you open your comment with is 'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop' - is that correct?

Your analysis and theory makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence. It explains why people were phoning me on Sunday and Monday in a fruitless chase for inside information, which I certainly don't have. But someone inside Church House or someone with an axe to grind and access to the correspondence certainly would have access.

This places responsibility yet again on the practice and culture inside Church House where devious tactics are being employed to block any progress towards a re-examination on church policy, let alone real change leading to the full inclusion of LGB&T people. It feels a bit like war!
Posted by: Colin Coward on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:19pm GMT

Yes Colin, that's the "quote" I can't find except in the headline. Perhaps I missed something?

One does wonder, Colin what the CofE is doing. Take the appointment of Robert Paterson as the chair of the group looking into Civil Partnerships, he was one of only two English bishops to vote AGAINST giving civil partners pension parity.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:59pm GMT

In his commentary, Reynolds brings together information which I knew from various sources and includes information of which I was not previously aware. He sheds far more light on the treatment of Jeffrey John by the leadership in the Church of England than any of the press accounts.

Martin Reynolds is a retired south Wales priest who is an adviser to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement headquartered in the UK.

And I've already been called out for excessive use of exclamation points. So sue me!

UPDATE: The Church Times has further information and commentary on the question of the legality of the actions by the Church of England in barring Jefffrey John from being a bishop.

MORE ON DR JEFFREY JOHN AND HIS ALLEGED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Thus far The Independent seems to have the most reliable coverage of the alleged litigation being prepared by Dr John and his legal advisers against the Church of England.

Under current equality laws religious organisations are are given dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply with their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed over, and mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the Church's current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the Church would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very existence of many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the issue those at the top would be forced to confront some embarrassing - and extremely divisive - issues.

Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take such a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the church," said one. "He's not the litigious type."

Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously deeply counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It makes him look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather good way of smearing him."

The newspaper report includes a photo of a nasty sign, which I don't see as necessary, but I admit the sign is the reality for some who oppose the appointment of gay bishops.

The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with liberal leanings.

More's the pity. I expect Jeffrey John will not be a bishop, which is very much the Church of England's loss.

Read the article which reminds us of what conservatives happily label "The Jeffrey John clause", in which gay persons are asked to repent of their "physically homosexual past", whereas such repentance is not asked of heterosexual candidates, a Catch-22, which is about as blatantly discriminatory as one can imagine.

UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian thinks it is unlikely that Jeffrey John will sue the Church of England because he keeps his personal life private, which he could not do in the midst of litigation, and because he will lose the case anyway.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.
....

Look at the small print of its legal opinion on civil partnerships, transparently designed to prevent John from being able to sue for discrimination. No selection committee would ask straight candidates for a job whether they had ever had pre-marital sex, and, if they had, whether they were jolly sorry for it. Yet the Church of England believes that it is legally and morally OK to ask the equivalent questions of gay men: "Whether the candidate had always complied with the church's teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous pre-marital sexual activity."

As the late, great Molly Ivins said so often, you can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE 2 from Jim Naughton at The Lead:

Articles appeared in several British newspapers over the weekend suggesting that Dean Jeffrey John of St. Alban's Cathedral was going to sue the Church of England for discrimination unless he is made a bishop. We don't think these stories were quite right.

It is our understanding, after some extensive conversations, that what John has done is hire a lawyer to inform the Church of England that provisions which prohibit anyone in a civil partnership--be they gay or straight, celibate or sexually active--from becoming a bishop exceed even the generous exemptions provided for religious organizations in the Equality Act of 2010.

JEFFREY JOHN V. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

From the Guardian:

The Church of England's most senior openly gay cleric is understood to be considering suing his employers for discrimination unless he is made a bishop.

I doubt that Jeffrey John will pursue litigation on the basis of what is stated above. The article includes words such as, "Reports on Sunday suggested..." and "It is thought..." Jeffrey John, along with his reported legal representative, have refused to comment. The Church of England also refuses comment. Much is yet to be known about what's really happening, thus the wording that indicates much less than certainty about the situation by the writer of the article.

A source close to John told the Sunday Times: "This is not a case of demanding something he is not entitled to but a way of resolving the flawed voting process that prevented him being made the bishop of Southwark."

If possible litigation is pending, then the above statement would more likely be the basis for John to pursue legal action against the Church of England, rather than his demanding that he be made a bishop. The Guardian usually does a better job of reporting.

TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT DOWN

According to Simon at Thinking Anglicans, here and here, the Dioceses of Birmingham and Truro in the Church of England voted down the Anglican Covenant. The votes bring the total to four dioceses in England that have voted against the covenant. 23 dioceses, 50%, must vote FOR the covenant, or it dies.

Earlier, the Dioceses of Wakefield and St Edmundsbury & Ipswich voted against the covenant.

The Dioceses of Lichfield and Durham voted in favor of the covenant.

BRAVO, BISHOP ALAN, FROM ACROSS THE POND

Bishop Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham in the Church of England, wrote a fine post about bullying in the church titled Bullying of and by clergy: a way ahead?.

It seems to me, along with some comments earlier this month, that everyone knows what bullying is, and when they feel bullied, but the description needs to be in terms of the behaviour that has to change. If we don't do that the onus stays in the wrong place, and things will never improve. The vast majority of claims I have drilled into dissolve into mutual recrimination. So I have to say that the perception of "bullying" boils down to a symptom of organisational malaise, the abuse of power.

We need procedures in place, as for whistleblowing, available to individuals; but this is not enough.

The key to progress is to have a public framework describing the proper use of power against which all behaviour can be measured.

Such a framework makes any anomaly look like an anomaly, rather than just a random incidence of "shit happens."

Much of what Bishop Alan says could apply to any church, not only to the Church of England, but especially to hierarchical churches. And bullying goes both ways, even in hierarchical churches.

Bullying is very much about the abuse of power, the exercise of power in unacceptable ways. The focus must to be on examining behavior and measuring behavior against objective standards.

One final frontier remains, however. Church culture, deferential, hierarchical and often inclined to hypocrisy, breeds an alignment gap between aspiration and active accountability at the top. The Church is full of good intentions but some bishops, forgive me for saying but it's the truth, fear and loathe that kind of open accountability. Confronted recently with a proposed standard policy on appointments, out poured reasons why this was an impossible bureaucratic imposition to clip their wings. Ironically, much practice is consistent with what was proposed, and the law will probably carry my Lords kicking and screaming where they don't want to go.

In my humble opinion, the words above are so very true and are those of a courageous bishop. Bishop Alan quite often goes boldly where other bishops fear to tread. When we met over dinner while I was in England, I asked him, only half-jokingly, if he was content with his status as a suffragan for the rest of his service as a bishop. I do wonder if, because of his willingness to openly and publicly tackle subjects that few bishops are willing to take on, his advancement in the church might suffer. I hope and pray not.

AMIE DECLARES ITS INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

At the website of Anglican Mission in England, Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden write as follows:

The ordinations of three young Englishmen by the Archbishop of Kenya in June and the launch of the Anglican Mission in England was a "game-changer". It marked a turning point after four and a half years of discussions with and proposals to Lambeth Palace. These discussions were to seek a way of providing effective Episcopal oversight to those for whom this had become problematic in the Church of England.

The launch of AMIE and the establishment of its panel of bishops indicated that we would no longer play the game of Church of England politics as defined by the Church of England Establishment.
....

It has a different view of women in ministry that does not seek to compete as though it is a matter of power and status. It has a different view of marriage and sexuality which is not based on the interchangeability of the genders. AMIE resists the disaggregation of the issues as though they are all separate. It analyses the current malaise as a gradual process of destabilizing biblically faithful Anglican witness and ministry.

The writers use the analogy of the Arab Spring for the launch of their "game-changer" plan. The members of the AMIE group appear to see themselves as akin to the oppressed people in the Middle East.

And all along I thought it was women and LGTB persons who were the oppressed in the Church of England and that Archbishop Rowan Williams leaned over backwards to appease the anti-gay and anti-women folks. How mistaken I was!

H/T to Nicholas Knisely at The Lead, who says:

Much of this is familiar to people who remember the first moves of the AMIA movement here in the US back in 2000 and the subsequent irregular ordinations of Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers to the episcopate. This latest essay makes clear that the new organization in England is also planning to ignore the rules of the Anglican Communion when they get in the way of their goals.

Yes, I believe I've seen this movie already.

VOICES OF WOMEN HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD

The Rev Vanessa Herrick is a priest in the Church of England, which is presently engaged in deciding through legislation in General Synod whether women bishops will be allowed to serve with the same degree of authority as male bishops.

In her splendid statement which follows, Vanessa covers all the bases as a clear and eloquent voice for justice and equality for women in the Church of England. Her message applies equally to other Christian churches. Although the Episcopal Church has ordained women as priests for 34 years and women as bishops for 22 years, certain Episcopalians have not yet accepted the church’s policies. Vanessa’s words may be helpful as an educational aid to those who still oppose women priests and women bishops to help them catch up with the official policy of the church and the rest of us who believe that all the baptized are to be treated equally.

As the first woman ordained to the episcopacy in the Episcopal Church, The Rt Rev Barbara Harris said, "How can you initiate someone and then treat them like a half-assed baptized?"

Vanessa's words:

Over the past ten years, many words have been spoken. But what has been noticeable is that the voice of women themselves has been relatively quiet. This comparative silence has been the product of generosity, patience and respect. Generosity, because we recognise the pain women bishops would bring for some; patience, because we know it takes time to listen, reflect and work out a way forward; respect, because we value and treasure the rich inheritance and diversity which we share as Anglicans. Indeed, over my own journey of discipleship, I have travelled from roots in the conservative evangelical tradition, through charismatic renewal to a place where I am now most at home in a more catholic setting for worship and a less conservative stance theologically. I love the Church of England – though it can sometimes be the most frustrating institution in the world!

But the voice that has not really been heard is the voice of the women themselves. The ones about whom we are talking. As so often in the history of the church and of the world, it’s the voice of those who’ll be most affected by a decision made about them that sometimes seems to go unnoticed: the voice of women who, at present, have no voice in the House of Bishops; who are unable to respond to a vocation to the episcopate; whose priestly ministries are, in the main, accepted or tolerated but sometimes despised; the ones whose lives, ministries and even identities may be further affected by not being able to enter this third order of ministry. And that’s why I ask that you listen to just a few more words – explanatory and personal – which, I hope, may express something of the feelings of women who are ordained – but also of those – lay and ordained, male and female – who long to see women as bishops in the Church.

So let me offer some brief responses to the key theologically issues.

First, the issue of headship. Much rests (from the conservative evangelical viewpoint) on the interpretation of key texts from Genesis and from Paul. The equality of men and women as being made in the image of God is not disputed. (See Genesis 1.26-28) Where the difficulty arises is in respect of Genesis 3.16 which, as a consequence of The Fall, places the woman as functionally subordinate to the man. This is then further interpreted by Paul as the foundation for a range of understandings both within the church and in respect of marriage and family life, whereby male headship and female subordination becomes the norm.

Amongst others, I believe this interpretation to be mistaken because:

-it fails to acknowledge the fact that the overall trajectory of Scripture is one in which the essential dignity, equality and complementarity of the whole of humanity – disrupted by the Fall – is then fully restored in the New Testament as a result of the work of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit; in short, it undermines the efficacy of the work of Christ in bringing about the New Creation;

-it fails to account for the extraordinarily counter-cultural behaviour of Jesus in the way he both related to, affirmed and commissioned women during his time on earth;

-it fails to acknowledge the cultural context in which the early church emerged – one where in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman world, women were given no place in public life but were largely confined to the domestic sphere;

To suggest that women should always be subordinate to men is, to my mind, to misunderstand what Scripture says.

Second, there’s sacramental assurance… For me this view is, at best, theologically incomprehensible and at worst positively distasteful. First, I believe it offers a distorted view of orders, for it seems to rest more on the perceived power of human lineage than on authority given by God. Whilst I do believe in the importance and significance of ‘succession’ in the sense that episcopal ordination is the appropriate outworking of the Church’s responsibility only to ordain those whose call has been tested by God and by the Church, a person’s ordination is not, to my mind, dependent upon gender or ‘pedigree’. Ordination is – as with every sacrament – an invitation to the Holy Spirit to pour out the grace of God upon those who seek him. Our authority and assurance in respect of orders therefore comes, primarily, from God – not from anything intrinsic to the character, gender or adequacy of the bishop ordaining. Just as the celebration of the Eucharist does not depend on the worthiness of the President of that Eucharist but (as Article 26 says) is “effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise”, so, I believe, the sacrament of ordination is made effectual by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, irrespective of the gender of the bishop ordaining.

But there is another aspect which troubles me. To say that a woman cannot be a bishop simply because she is a woman and Jesus was a man – and hence a woman cannot ‘represent Christ’ at the Eucharist, (or indeed in any of the other functions vested in episcopal office), is to deny the ‘female’ in God. For, if (as Genesis 1 tells us) human beings are made in the image of God, male and female, then logically, there is male and female in God. And if Christ himself is, as Colossians tells us, “the image of the invisible God” then it follows, by extension that there is male and female in Christ. The priest or bishop thus represents Christ in being human rather than in being male.

But the most uncomfortable – and most distasteful – aspect of this part of the traditional catholic response is the way in which it tells me, at a ‘gut’ level, that I am somehow a charlatan; second-class; incomplete; inadequate. I am sure that those who take this view would deny this outright. But let me ask you: how would it be if, in all these debates, we replaced the word ‘woman’ with the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘black’? We would be horrified at some of the statements that are made….

Third, there’s unity – both within the Church of England; and in respect of ecumenical relations. For some, a woman bishop would be a focus of disunity rather than unity. Some parishes and clergy will not be ‘in communion’ with her. Moreover, the bishops themselves would not be ‘in communion’ with one another – for some will be deemed ‘pure’ and others ‘tainted’; thus the very source of the Church of England’s unity will itself be compromised. Yet, sadly, in practice, our communion is already impaired – even within this Diocese. To ordain women as bishops will make little difference.

The question of unity is also frequently cited in regard to ecumenical relations. However, in relation to Rome, Anglican orders are deemed ‘null and void’ anyway, so having women as bishops would make little difference. Moreover, the presence (for over twenty years) of female bishops within the Anglican Communion has not prevented the continuation of ecumenical dialogue, so there is no reason to believe that women bishops in the Church of England would do so. Indeed, many within the Roman Catholic Church are desperate for the Church of England to ordain women as bishops in order to strengthen their own – albeit muted – campaign to allow women to exercise ordained ministry at all. Add the fact that some of our protestant ecumenical partners will not move forward in partnership with us until the Church of England does fully open its orders of ministry to both genders, and matters are further complicated. Ultimately, the Church of England is part of Christ’s universal church, but its actions and decisions are not to be bound by the constraints of others – whether Catholic or Protestant. It makes its own decisions.

So is this legislation the best we can hope for?

No other province in the Anglican Communion has resorted to legislation to address the issue of women bishops. For some, trust in the generosity, sensitivity and care of one’s diocesan bishop is, it would seem, insufficient. Indeed, the proposed legislation offers those who cannot accept women bishops far greater security than they presently have in relation to women priests: all diocesan bishops will – in law – be required to establish a ‘scheme’ and have regard to the Code of Practice. The draft legislation is complex; it is imperfect; but it may provide a workable solution to the many dilemmas we have outlined.

Inevitably there are drawbacks and anxieties. For women, the drawbacks are significant: the possibility of rejecting their orders and ministry will be enshrined in law and those who so reject them will continue for the foreseeable future to be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops themselves. No other organisation would have to audacity to enshrine such discrimination in law.

In addition, it is likely that those who object to women in the episcopate will continue to press for jurisdiction for their own bishops ‘as of right’ rather than by delegation, by some form of legal ‘transfer’ of jurisdiction, or (as the archbishops attempted to do by their Amendment in July 2010) by some form of co-jurisdiction. This would so weaken the role of the diocesan bishop (whether male or female) that the office becomes untenable. In 2008, and again in 2010, I was a signatory to two letters from some fifty senior women in the Church of England- one to the House of Bishops, the other to the Archbishops. In writing, we indicated that if the Church decided to ordain women to any form of episcopacy that was in some way ‘watered-down’, then we would sadly choose to ‘wait’, rather than press forward. We will simply not comply with anything which would create a form of second-class female bishop.

So is now the right time to be moving forward?

There are those conservative evangelicals and traditional catholics who would say we should wait. But to do so would be incredibly destructive:

-it would prolong the agony of not having resolved this issue;

-it would continue to absorb time and energy and be a huge distraction from our primary task of mission;

-it would deprive the Church – and particularly the House of Bishops – of the wisdom, skills, sensitivity and insight of women in senior leadership in the Church;

More significantly, it would utterly undermine the Church’s credibility as an institution, for – whatever the niceties of theological argument – the wider society will simply perceive a negative outcome on this issue to be proof that the Church of England is anachronistic, out of touch with reality, misogynistic, and plainly discriminatory against women. For most people, the issue of women bishops (if they are interested at all) is one of justice and equality. A decision not to ordain women as bishops – or even to delay – would have a disastrously 0negative impact on the mission of the Church and on vocations. Whilst the Church should not ‘be conformed to the world’, I do believe we have to take very seriously our calling to ‘proclaim the gospel afresh in each generation’ – and that means not only ‘listening’ to our generation, but also being acutely aware of the messages we give by the actions we take.

Finally, something of my own feelings about all this. When I was asked to speak in favour of women bishops, I was reluctant to do so. Not because I don’t believe women should be bishops – I do; but because, for the past eight and a half years, I’ve tried to work as Director of Ministry and DDO with fairness and a degree of objectivity, suppressing my own feelings and sense of disquiet in order to work faithfully in a ministry I feel called to exercise. But I can’t deny in speaking today that there’ve been very painful moments for me as a woman priest in the Church of God. For example, what is it about me that means that the bishop who ordained me is ‘tainted’? Am I ‘unclean’ in some way? Women priests have had to get used to such things over the past seventeen years, but it has often brought tears. For my vocation and my identity can’t be separated: I am a priest. And when I’m told by some that I’m not a priest, then that is an affront to who I am – not simply a denial of my role or job. If women priests are firm and defend themselves, they are accused of being ‘pushy’ or aggressive; if they express their pain, they are accused of being ‘all emotional’.

I’m tired of being perceived as ‘a problem’. I simply want to get on with what I’m called to. God has called me to be a priest and I believe he is calling some of the women in my generation to be bishops. I dare to believe that the Church of England needs us. No one has asked what might happen if the three thousand women clergy in the Church of England were to decide that ‘enough is enough’, and move to another province where their ministry is welcome. No one has contemplated the effect of a further ‘rejection’ of their orders on those without whom the Church simply could not now function. Women clergy don’t wish to hold the Church to ransom: but they also don’t want to be taken for granted. So, please take seriously the pain that we also bear: for it’s very real; and allow us to respond to God within all three orders of ministry – and find ourselves welcomed.

This draft legislation’s passage through the synodical process may well be difficult. Some, on both sides of the argument, will think it is not good enough. My own view is that it’s the best the Church can hope for – a credible way through the quagmire, but not perfect. To delay would, I believe, be a very big mistake – both for our own sanity as an institution and for the mission of the Church. So I hope very much that in October you will vote in favour of moving forward. In the meantime, I pray for all who disagree – that our relationships may be characterised by grace and generosity and not by that acrimony which the media so love. May the Holy Spirit of Pentecost hover over God’s Church giving us discernment, courage and healing as we share together in the task of decision-making and bringing in Christ’s Kingdom.

Vanessa Herrick

June 2011

Posted with Vanessa Herrick's permission.

H/T to Lesley at Lesley's Blog, who first posted Vanessa's statement.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND - NO GAY BISHOPS

From the Church Times:

In England, the equality laws make it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation...

Nevertheless, exemptions written into the Act accept that the C of E “does not draw the same distinction as most secular employers between a person’s work life and his or her private life”.

The key factor is the requirement of a bishop to act as a focus of unity. The advice states: “Where someone is in a civil partnership and/or is known to have been in a same-sex relationship, even though now celibate, it is for the CNC . . . to come to a view whether the person concerned can act as a focus for unity because of these matters.”

So. The church is exempted from the practice of equality under the law because the bishop must be a focus of unity. That's absurd. No bishop can possibly be a focus of unity for every single person in the diocese. After all, several bishops left the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic ordinariates. They were hardly a focus of unity, because members of their flock stayed behind in the Church of England. The "focus of unity" reasoning appears to be trumped up for the very purpose of excluding gay persons from the episcopacy.

A CHECKLIST has been drawn up that makes it virtually impossible for an openly gay person to become a bishop in the Church of England.

“[F]actors that can properly be taken into account:

• whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity;

• whether he was in a civil partnership;

• whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex relationship;

• whether he had expressed repent­ance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and

• whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.”

The checklist leave me speechless, because it evidences such intrusiveness and discrimination against gay persons as to be truly shocking.

Are you bored yet with posts on the Church of England? I'll give you a rest after this one, unless....

TRY LEADING BY EXAMPLE

What do I want to say about the temper tantrums of Archbishops Rowan Williams and John Sentamu that I have not already said elsewhere? Not much.

As the Guardian reveals in a leak from the notes of the late dean of Southwark Cathedral, Colin Slee, who was present at the meeting to choose a bishop for the Diocese of Southwark:

The document reveals shouting matches and arm-twisting by the archbishops to keep out the diocese's preferred choices as bishop: Jeffrey John, the gay dean of St Albans, and Nicholas Holtam, rector of St Martin-in-the-Fields in central London, whose wife was divorced many years ago. Eventually Christopher Chessun, then an assistant bishop, was chosen.

As I've already said, I'd like to have smacked the two archbishops, but that's resorting to violence. On second thought, I'd send them to their rooms without their supper to contemplate their bad behavior.

Unfortunately, the two men are not toddlers, but rather "mature" men in positions of power and influence, and their actions have consequences, grave consequences.

Slee described Williams shouting and losing his temper in last year's Southwark meeting, which left several members of the crown nomination committee, responsible for the selection of bishops, in tears.

Slee also in effect charges the church with hypocrisy, stating that there are several gay bishops "who have been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions". The memo warns: "This situation cannot endure. Exposure of the reality would be nuclear."

How the Church of England continues to function in such a vast and hypocritical conspiracy of silence, remains a mystery to me. And that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the chutzpah to lecture our bishops in TEC on how to run a church is beyond my understanding. Perhaps he should try leading by example.