A SPEECH, A LETTER, AND A LETTER

From Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's address to General Synod:

We all know that perfect love casts out fear. We know it although we don’t often apply it. We mostly know that perfect fear casts out love. In any institution or organisation, the moment that suspicion reigns and the assumption that everything is zero sum becomes dominant (that is to say that some else’s gain must be my loss, we can’t both flourish) that institution will be increasingly dominated by fear. It is an old problem in game theory. The moment at which something is zero sum, players stop looking so much at their objectives and increasingly look at each other. The more they look at each other, the more they are dominated by fear and the less they are able to focus on their objectives.

The Church of England is not a closed system, nor is the Anglican Communion and most certainly nor is the Church catholic and universal. It is not a closed system because God is involved and where he is involved there is no limit to what can happen, and no limit to human flourishing. His abundant love overwhelms us when we make space to flood into our own lives, into institutions and systems.

From the Church of England House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage:

20. The 2005 pastoral statement said that it would not be right to produce an authorized public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships and that clergy should not provide services of blessing for those who registered civil partnerships. The House did not wish, however,  to interfere with the clergy's pastoral discretion about when more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of the circumstances.   The College made clear on 27 January that, just as the Church of England's doctrine of marriage remains the same, so its pastoral and liturgical practice also remains unchanged.

21. The same approach as commended in the 2005 statement should therefore apply to couples who enter same-sex marriage, on the assumption that any prayer will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church's teaching and their reasons for departing from it. Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.

The letter from the House of Bishops is the kind of doublespeak that is soul-destroying to LGBT church members and to those who support their full inclusion in the life of the church. As a fellow Anglican, I read the letter with shock and dismay.  I can only imagine the scope of the fear within the House of Bishops that would lead them to approve sending out such a letter. 

Not only will same sex marriages services be banned in the Church of England, but clergy will not be allowed to "provide services of blessing" to same sex couples who marry but will rather be restricted to "an informal kind of prayer", preceded by a pastoral discussion about why they must follow the church's teaching and settle for something less.  Like Tina Turner, I ask, "What's love got to do with it?"  How will the rules allow for flourishing of LGBT persons in the church?

But, as Archbishop Welby says in his address, "... because God is involved and where he is involved there is no limit to what can happen...", who knows but that when the prayers are said, God will do as God chooses and - Gasp! - provide a blessing, despite the ban by the church.  The phrase itself, "an informal kind of prayer", is a shriveled manner of speaking about invoking the God of abundant and overflowing love. It seems to me idolatrous to attempt to limit the blessings of God for those the House of Bishops deems not quite worthy to receive the full blessing.
 
Episcopal priest, Tobias Haller, wonders why the English bishops did not include a reference to Article XXXII of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, rather than The Lambeth Conference of 1998.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

In 2005, The Guardian published an article titled "Stop the Denial"  by Richard Haggis, a priest serving in a London parish:

Many of us long for the sort of union that could be marked by a public ceremony and decent and proper civil rights (from which the bishops have sought to exempt us for too long through their powerful position in the House of Lords). I very much hope to use the new law. I shall not ask permission and I shall not promise to be celibate. If they want to sack me they can, but they must own up to the kind of people they are.
....

To grow up as a church we need to stop pretending and stop lying. There are hundreds of gay priests, archdeacons and bishops. This is a fact. Those who can't accept it need to leave. Those gay clergy do far more for the Good News of God than the ranting nutters who would reject them. But we need help and support. We need to be looked after. And that has not been happening for a very long time. Until we learn to do so, we have no right to be taken seriously by thoughtful people.

And sacked he was, and Richard has not served as a priest in the church in the eight years since he wrote the article.  What has changed since 2005?  Same sex marriage will be legal in England, but the church will not ordain persons in same sex marriages, and clergy in same sex relationships are forbidden, in bold text, to contract a civil marriage. 

27.  The House is not, therefore, willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry. In addition it considers that it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church's teaching in their lives.

How long will the blatant hypocrisy continue? Whom do the bishop's believe they are fooling?

THE PROBLEM WITH ARCHBISHOPSPEAK...

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's statement on the vote to allow women bishops in the Church of England:

Today's overwhelming vote demonstrates the widespread desire of the Church of England to move ahead with ordaining women as bishops, and at the same time enabling those who disagree to flourish. There is some way to go, but we can be cautiously hopeful of good progress. The tone of the debate was strikingly warm and friendly, and a great debt of gratitude is owed to the Steering Committee for the draft legislation, and to those who facilitated the meetings so effectively. The more we learn to work together the more effective the church will be in meeting the huge challenges of spiritual renewal, and above all service to our communities, so as to both proclaim and demonstrate the reality of the love of Christ.

Am I alone in detecting a bit of dissonance in the archbishop's acknowledgement of "the widespread desire of the Church of England to move ahead with ordaining women as bishops" paired with "and at the same time enabling those who disagree to flourish"? His choice of the word "flourish" for those who disagree with the vote seems an odd choice of terminology. I expect I will never understand archbishopspeak.  The word mealy-mouthed comes to mind.  I don't know what Justin Welby is trying to say. By guarding his words so carefully, he ends up making no sense at all to me. Is a mandatory crash course in archbishopspeak (aka obfuscation) required after appointment as ABC?

BOSCO 'SPLAINS IT ALL

Presiding Bishop Katharine
carries her mitre

Sometimes those outside see inside more clearly than the insiders.   From Christchurch, NZ, Bosco Peters' writes an excellent post on the defeat of the motion to allow women bishops in the Church of England. 

Obviously my bishop, being a woman, cannot function as a bishop in England. Since this week’s vote in the Church of England’s General Synod, one can no longer make polite English excuses about this being an accident of history. It is now an intentional decision.

I have a … (how can I say this on a family-friendly site?)… ummm…I have a Y chromosome and I was ordained by someone with a Y chromosome, etc. all the way back to the earliest church. I can function as a priest in all of the Church of England. Some, however, who were ordained by someone who has no Y chromosome, even though they themselves have a Y chromosome, will find some places in the CofE where they cannot so function. We are a commnon.

No, the last word in the paragraph is not a misspelling, although Firefox or some other power in charge of internet spelling says otherwise.  Bosco has coined a new word for us which is not yet accepted in the lexicon of the intertubes.  Click one of the links to read how Bosco 'splains it all.

I joke around some here (you laugh, or you cry) , but Bosco shares seriously good thoughts about what is and what is not communion and various other matters. 

THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

David Chillingworth, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, posted a link to the PDF file on the introduction to the discussion of the Anglican Covenant at General Synod.

INTRODUCTION TO SESSION ON ANGLICAN COVENANT

Explain process

Indaba - Inform General Synod Representatives - no Resolution or decision

My progress around the diocese - impressions

What is the issue

Diversity - colonisation - communion - federation - asperation

Positive about covenant - negative about this covenant or this instrument

Nobody imposing this - English dioceses have been rejecting it

Neither the bishop nor the dioceses in the SEC seem to be enthusiastic about the covenant.

Further, from Paul Bagshaw at Not the Same Stream:

Hugh Magee, the No Anglican Covenant Co-ordinator in Scotland, sent this summary of the progress, or otherwise, of the Covenant in Scotland. It comes with the caveat "subject to verification".

If you are at all familiar with the Scottish Episcopal Church, you will know that we have seven dioceses in this Province: Aberdeen, Argyll, Brechin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Moray and St. Andrews. At this stage, all but the first two of these diocese have held their Synods and all have rejected the Covenant, and a prevailing view (though perhaps not the only one) is that Aberdeen and Argyll will follow suit.

The only fly in the ointment at this stage is the possibility that the Provincial Synod will be asked to make assent to the Covenant a canonical matter, in which case the normal two-year ratification process would be set in motion (assuming such a canon were initially accepted). At this stage, it seems more credible to assume that the Covenant is dead in the water in Scotland.

Bear in mind that the Scottish Episcopal Church has close historical and liturgical ties with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and is perhaps therefore predisposed to be supportive of its American counterpart, which is seen as a presumed culprit in the present debate. After all, it could be argued that the Anglican Communion itself was born in Aberdeen in 1784, with the consecration of Samuel Seabury to be the first American bishop.

At this moment, the view to the North cannot pleasant for the two archbishops in England.

'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.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD TO DEBATE 2/3 MAJORITY FOR ADOPTION OF COVENANT

From the Church of England website on the meeting of General Synod in February 2011:

The Business Committee has also scheduled for debate the following motion from Mr John Ward that was not debated at the November Synod during the discussions on the Anglican Communion Covenant, for lack of time. The motion seeks to specify two-thirds majorities (rather than simple majorities) in the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity at the Final Approval Stage for the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. The Covenant was referred to dioceses in December and is expected to return to the General Synod in 2012.

H/T to Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans.

UPDATE: Jim Naughton comments at The Lead:

It seems incongruous to argue, as supporters of the Covenant do, that it is exceedingly significant document that is required to save the Anglican Communion, but that it pass only the most minimal test a democracy allows.