UPDATE: This post is now sticky – full text from the original link may now be found in the comments below, or via Googlecache or Googlecache pdf thanks to readers
Colin Coward reports:-
Members of the LGBTI Anglican Coalition met with David Porter, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director for Reconciliation at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday. David was generous with his time and we were there for over an hour and a half.
David began by outlining the history which has brought us to where we are from the much more optimistic beginnings nearly a year ago.
It began with the Pilling Report which was struggling to land (as he put it) at the time he was appointed. The Pilling group was an ill-conceived exercise in the first place, ill-conceived in part because formulated by a male only group initially. It was marked by a lack of coherence and incompetence in the Church.
David expressed the hope that things are changing and that we are getting to a more emotionally and relationally intelligent place. I suspect all of us present were profoundly reassured to hear this.
…….
The College of Bishops trial the process
Moving on to the College of Bishops meeting in September when the Shared Conversation process was trialled, David said it didn’t work as hoped because the culture of good facilitation met the culture of the College of Bishops and some of the old school bishops refused to play ball. Good process hit the dysfunctional nature of the Church of England.
The Church of England is the primary problem Province for the Anglican Communion because the other Provinces no longer really know what the Church of England is.
The bishops only allowed a day and a half for the process and ran out of time. Now the regional Conversations will involve 2 nights away to ensure proper process. The intention is to have equal numbers of laity and clergy and men and women, with 20% under 30 and a minimum of two who are openly LGBT or I, together representing the known views around the diocese.
……..
Planning for fracture
The intention is to change the tone of the conversation and take some of the toxicity out of it, acknowledging that there is no agreement between, say, us and Reform. David assumes there will be a fracture and when it happens, it will be small and done with profound sadness, with a measure of grace, disagreeing well. The Conversations are a process in which it is hoped to find grace in each other where there are profound disagreements. Maybe 80% of the C of E will hold together with fractures at either end of the spectrum.
……..
Where do we go from here?
A regional advisory group is being formed, composed of one representative, probably a bishop or senior. Part of the purpose of this group seems to be to reassure the rump of bishops who still don’t want to engage with the process.
…….
David believes the General Synod can’t put off a debate and vote on the core issues affecting the place of LGBTI people in the Church of England beyond the February 2017 meeting. This for me was the most significant new piece information I gained on Tuesday. David does not control the timetable or agenda of General Synod but he does have direct authority from the Archbishop of Canterbury, so this ambition may well be realised…
This is a sobering read.
Sorry, but I seem to have missed something.
What does the “I” stand for?
Marie, the “I” refers to Colin Coward. Background [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7956186/Homosexual-priest-to-marry-Nigerian-male-model.html] here[/url].
For me a few things stand out, although it is hard to necessarily distinguish what is from Colin and what is from David:
1. Some Bishops consider the game is slanted:
– once one considers that the Bible is not clear on an issue, then it becomes possible to have a facilitated conversation on the issue. Some of the bishops were not prepared to go along with that game. God bless them.
2. The diocesan game is open to abuse:
-‘representing known views around the diocese’ – pretty subjective selection criteria, and the evidence so far including in the diocese of Oxford is that it has been heavily abused.
– ‘a minimum of two who are openly LGBT or I’ – a disproportionate weighting considering the representation in the general population, although I can imagine why some moral support from others might be wanted.
3. The collection and weighting of opinion is open to abuse:
Consider the following scenario: 2/3 of the church is traditional and conservative on sexual morality, 1/6 undecided, and 1/6 liberal on sexual morality. So, 4 persons represent the 2/3 conservatives, 4 persons the undecideds, and 4 persons the liberals. Hey presto, the 2/3 conservatives are now a 1/3 minority. But it gets worse, just to make sure, add in 2 extra members from the ‘management.’ Now the conservatives are outnumbered 4:14! It is classic Indaba Technique opportunity.
4. The risk assessment of change is foolhardy
That was the assessment TEC made in 2003 when they opted to consecrate Gene Robinson. They have lost a quarter of their attendance, and it has not bottomed yet. Some left to join ACNA, and some left to join other denominations, but most sadly of all, many just gave up on church and Jesus Christ altogether. If this sort of calculation is regarded in the CofE as an acceptable price then it is delusional, because once started, without a massive change, it will just keep on going. When this situation of decline starts in a church due to a change of doctrine, the heart goes out of it, and the Glory departs.
Humpty dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty dumpty had 20% knocked off him
….and felt fine…
No he didn’t, he became unstable, unable to keep himself together, and had a great fall.
I hear the same calculation being made about Communion numbers, and it is just as delusional, assuming 20% will exclude themselves and that is acceptable. Nonsense.
Among the lies, this one stands out to me prominently: ” it will be… done with profound sadness.”
The only sadness will be for a degree of mourning for the organizational loss of prestige and standing, given that it will be smaller with less funding. We witnessed the same quality of “sadness” in the machinations and promise-breaking involved in bringing women bishops.
Were there genuine sadness, then the process would not be manipulated to produce the desired, schismatic outcome.
The actions reveal the heart, and there is no health there, much less genuine caring for fellow Anglicans.
#4 I agree entirely that if Porter is assuming a 20% loss of cranks at either end of a spectrum, he is entirely out of touch. He has failed to see the lesson of TEC, as you note, but he more seriously misunderstands the GS as a totality and in relation to the CofE. If he believes 80% of the Communion will live with a compromise the CofE seeks to effect (and is itself broken by), he is simply out of touch. More likely would be a massive split, along the lines of 70% and 30%, and the CofE itself broken.
“Consider the following scenario: 2/3 of the church is traditional and conservative on sexual morality, 1/6 undecided, and 1/6 liberal on sexual morality. So, 4 persons represent the 2/3 conservatives, 4 persons the undecideds, and 4 persons the liberals. Hey presto, the 2/3 conservatives are now a 1/3 minority. But it gets worse, just to make sure, add in 2 extra members from the ‘management.’ Now the conservatives are outnumbered 4:14! ”
Precisely how the ACC and standing committee have operated for their entire existence, so Porter is just following established procedure. Given that he only has a 30 month timetable, one assumes he will use a very “liberal” definition of “conservative”- from the looks of things, he will be actively consulting with Colin Coward on the selection.
Mmm, sad but terribly predictable (if accurate).
For what they are worth, some stats that assist – in last year’s [url=http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/5f5s31fk47/Results-for-Anglican-Clergy-Survey-08092014.pdf]YouGov poll[/url]
of clergy a very small majority (51%) of CofE clergy polled were against same sex marriage, though a larger majority (61%) were in favor of maintaining unity by being more tolerant of diverse views. Just 13% thought that the CofE should seek greater uniformity of ethics and doctrine. 23% of clergy polled described themselves as conservative.
Interestingly the bishops polled were consistently more conservative.
I see the link is no longer working….
Here’s the full text, and the google cache link of the original. Rather obviously, all of this should be shared far and wide, particularly with the Primates and orthodox bishops of the Anglican Communion so that everybody can see the, um, . . . nature . . . of David Porter as well as Archbishop Welby’s visions of what “reconciliation” is all about. What an utter disgrace he is as an Anglican and a Christian.
[blockquote]Shared Conversations – the LGBTI Anglican Coalition meet with David Porter
Colin Coward, January 22nd, 2015 Be
Members of the LGBTI Anglican Coalition met with David Porter, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director for Reconciliation at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday. David was generous with his time and we were there for over an hour and a half.
David began by outlining the history which has brought us to where we are from the much more optimistic beginnings nearly a year ago.
It began with the Pilling Report which was struggling to land (as he put it) at the time he was appointed. The Pilling group was an ill-conceived exercise in the first place, ill-conceived in part because formulated by a male only group initially. It was marked by a lack of coherence and incompetence in the Church.
David expressed the hope that things are changing and that we are getting to a more emotionally and relationally intelligent place. I suspect all of us present were profoundly reassured to hear this.
Lambeth Palace has effectively been buying time (which some of us experience as kicking the LGBTI issue into the long grass yet again). Time has been needed to get heads around difficult internal Church ‘stuff’ – hence the decision to spend the first two years of Archbishop Justin’s archiepiscopate meeting every Primate in the Communion.
David then outlined the somewhat chaotic process by which the Conversations have been developed, resulting in groupings of between 3 and 5 dioceses with 12 or 10 participants from each. There was pressure from Church House to start the Conversations more quickly and compromise was arrived at. David knew he needed a longer period to prepare.
The question being addressed
Given the differences we are dealing with in the Church of England, David thought the Conversations should have addressed the question: How do we stay together? He lost the argument to a more missiological question: Given the changes in English culture, how should the Church respond? And given there is no consensus in the Church, how does the Church respond? This is not a decision-making process but is about ecclesiology and mission given the diverse and contradictory responses to the issue of sexuality and gender in the Church.
The College of Bishops trial the process
Moving on to the College of Bishops meeting in September when the Shared Conversation process was trialled, David said it didn’t work as hoped because the culture of good facilitation met the culture of the College of Bishops and some of the old school bishops refused to play ball. Good process hit the dysfunctional nature of the Church of England.
The Church of England is the primary problem Province for the Anglican Communion because the other Provinces no longer really know what the Church of England is.
The bishops only allowed a day and a half for the process and ran out of time. Now the regional Conversations will involve 2 nights away to ensure proper process. The intention is to have equal numbers of laity and clergy and men and women, with 20% under 30 and a minimum of two who are openly LGBT or I, together representing the known views around the diocese. David discovered that some bishops needed to ask him what the variety of views in their diocese might be!
Planning for fracture
The intention is to change the tone of the conversation and take some of the toxicity out of it, acknowledging that there is no agreement between, say, us and Reform. David assumes there will be a fracture and when it happens, it will be small and done with profound sadness, with a measure of grace, disagreeing well. The Conversations are a process in which it is hoped to find grace in each other where there are profound disagreements. Maybe 80% of the C of E will hold together with fractures at either end of the spectrum.
Other initiatives welcome
David hoped that people at the grass roots wouldn’t limit the possibilities to the regional Conversations, answering a question that CA people have raised. He would welcome a spontaneous outbreak of conversations at every level – but the Church of England doesn’t seem to do spontaneous, he reflected! He encouraged us to create other conversations – all are legitimate at whatever level.
Where do we go from here?
A regional advisory group is being formed, composed of one representative, probably a bishop or senior. Part of the purpose of this group seems to be to reassure the rump of bishops who still don’t want to engage with the process.
And a Reference Group is being formed, 14 people, 4 pro-LGBTI, 4 conservative, 4 non-aligned middle ground and 2 design group members. They will share information and receive feed-back from the Conversations, learning from each one and making adjustments.
David believes the General Synod can’t put off a debate and vote on the core issues affecting the place of LGBTI people in the Church of England beyond the February 2017 meeting. This for me was the most significant new piece information I gained on Tuesday. David does not control the timetable or agenda of General Synod but he does have direct authority from the Archbishop of Canterbury, so this ambition may well be realised.
What else?
Members of the Coalition had wanted to know whether the proceedings would be recorded and reported back to evolve a body of wisdom. Getting an organic process going in the Church of England is very difficult, David noted. The Facilitator team may well write a reflective commentary at the end and may or may not go beyond this.
The Mutual Conversation process is NOT a decision-making process in the Church of England.
There IS going to be change at General Synod and secretariat level.
The coming Synod elections will be fought on this platform.
There are still too many unknowns, and it’s hard to identify the moment at which something reaches a catalytic point.
There will be five Conversations before July 2015, four more before the end of the year and the remainder in early 2016.[/blockquote]
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MalL7Zq7wbUJ:changingattitude.org.uk/archives/8400+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Its interesting that the most prominent liberal CofE blog, Thinking Anglicans, doesn’t appear to have picked up this story. It normally publishes links to several articles concerning the Church of England every couple of days.
I would say the liberals did NOT want this to be published.
Unfortunately, in other news, an orthodox English blogger, Cranmers Curate, is retiring: http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/curates-farewell-to-youth-group.html
I would just be greatful for the lies and double talk to end. If the C of E want to go gay then let them say so.
I think the ABC made it clear that he was going to push through the acceptance of LGBTI relationships from the moment he spoke of a ‘good disagreement’… But I agree with Br. Michael’s statement. This fog of ambiguity and double talk is asphyxiating… I’m quite sure that this stuff has been spoken of behind closed doors by ‘strategists’ and ‘consultants’ for years..
#2. Marie Blocher,
The “I” stands for intersex.
This is nothing more than a multi-step process to introduce Leaven into the dough. The CoE is now the low hanging fruit.
Thanks to the Elves for keeping this at the top of the page. My hope is that the African bishops and archbishops who went to NY and signed off on TEC’s communique (resulting in the most recent Gafcon Primates letter), will read this, and recognize what desired endgame the current Archbishop of Canterbury is aiming for. That current strategy is to divide the Communion, ridding it of the Gafcon Churches (that 20% referred to by Porter is 20% of the CoE, they don’t care how many Africans they break communion with). This is obvious in the text of the article. Note that Lambeth has not even bothered to deny it.
The Delphi Technique, Alinsky Method and their variants being used in Facilitated Conversations are powerful psychological warfare tools and should not be being used by these cold fish from Coventry as a toolbox of tricks to get their own way over doctrine in the Christian church, whatever their motives.
Of course, when Dean of Liverpool, Welby was a Delphi Technique trained Facilitator at the Dublin Primates Meeting in 2011 where these techniques were used to persuade the attending Primates to unwittingly neuter themselves and turn themselves into a council of advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
They were first used to my knowledge in England by Bishop James Jones for the exercise in the Diocese of Liverpool following his article “Making Space for Truth and Grace”, a link which has also since disappeared, and meetings were held in Liverpool with the objective of changing the doctrinal position of the diocese. I recollect that Ian Markham of VTS was mentioned in connection with them and the Continuing Indaba conversations with Virginia and a diocese in Africa if my memory serves correctly.
Not much changes.
I assume “I” stands for intersex, which is a rare but very real medical condition. Were I born intersex I would be quite unhappy to find myself grouped, by virtue of a genetic or hormonal disorder, grouped with people who clearly have a psychological disorder.
I have managed to find an extract of what Bishop Jones wrote to his diocese in 2008:
I think the facilitator for these meetings and those with Virginia and the Diocese of Akure in Nigeria was Stephen Lyons.
It looks like these techniques honed now by Welby and his friends are now being rolled out in the Church of England and if Welby has his way will be in the Anglican Communion with TEC money. It would be good to pray for some wisdom over all this from our bishops and Primates to understand what is being planned for them, and the strength to resist the temptation to play along, and in the Anglican Communion, the American dollar.
The progressives in TEC claims this doctrinal change to be the work of the Holy Spirit. If it is the work of the Holy Spirit, why is it necessary to resort to manipulation, obfuscation, and deceit?
19, maybe the Holy Spirit needs a little help in getting the right result?
Thank you PM at #18 for a very interesting link. The double-speak which many leaders in TEC do so well was also being practiced at higher levels in the CofE, at least as far back as 2008.
LfxN and Br. Michael, I expect you know as well as I do that the lies and ambiguity will not end any time soon! But we are called to shine a light on it, patiently, so that other people of goodwill can see it for what it is, and renounce it. May the Lord bless the ministry of all who are engaged in this work.
The second paragraph of my #21 could be a new collect! 🙂
#12, so why is it that they don’t just scream “we’re going gay” and put it on the front page of newspapers? Why doesn’t TEC do that? Stop all these facilitated conversations and just go for it.
To do so would be to put everything in the light of day. And they know they can’t do that. Their evil, like all evil, lurks in the shadows, peeling off sheep one by one. Their organized religion is a travesty.
[blockquote]David expressed the hope that things are changing and that we are getting to a more emotionally and relationally intelligent place.[/blockquote]
That really sums up the error of applying a process driven approach to issues of church doctrine rather than the Anglican way of looking to the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Scriptures, something which came out in another interview with David Porter when Ed Stourton asked the question:
[blockquote] the truth is that these tensions within the Anglican Communion and the Church of England have as you have just reflected in a way, have arisen because of very deeply held theological doctrinal disputes … and it is difficult to see how one man by focussing on ‘process’ can overcome those[/blockquote]
Porter had no real answer to that, other than just for people to “hold tensions and differences together”.
“Process”, whether emotional or relational is not a proper basis for changing the teaching of a Christian denomination which seeks to be obedient to Christ.
That seems to me to be the core of the problem with all this and all the game-playing with people’s minds and emotions through these techniques.
As much as I loathed those innocuous statements that used to come out of Lambeth after every similar glimpse of what was really going on, I now find it somewhat disheartening that they aren’t even bothering to deny, or claim misquote, or “clarify.” It has been a week since this open statement on what their plans are, and as far as I can tell, neither Welby nor Porter has issued any statement referencing the meeting with Coward and Co. Or for that matter, addressing the related issue of the meeting in New York where TEC bought signatures (assuming that any of the Primates actually signed the communique that was clearly written by TEC).
Truly disheartening in a church that self identifies as the Body of Christ on Earth.
I am convinced that the true leadership of the real Anglican Communion (ie: that portion whose aim is to be in Communion with our Lord) can be found among the consecrators of Foley Beach, the Gafcon Primates, and others in the GS. The bureaucrats in London cannot even manage to get out a press release anymore, and are committed to compromising away whatever vestiges still exist of the Anglican Churches in the western world.
Is part of the problem that someone like Porter cannot see that his 80% idea is predicated on an (exaggerated) local reality, in which 10% are extreme at either end of a spectrum. First, it misrepresents the CofE reality. Second, it is terribly wrong when it comes to the wider AC. He apparently does not grasp this. The vast majority of the GS is not going to adopt a progressive sexuality they find no scriptural warrant for. But somehow he has persuaded himself this is about temperament and interpersonal dynamics, and in addition he has the outcome dreadfully wrong. The AC is not 80% OK with Porter’s vision. It is likely not 25% OK with it.
#26. It appears that the ABC bought into this myopic kind of thinking. There is no such animal as good disagreement. Isn’t this the same thing as “living into the tension” of days gone by?
#26 I referred to Porter on purpose. I am not confident about the ABC but I don’t think he misreads the AC egregiously. He is also a ‘manager’ more than an ‘idea’ person. At issue for him will not be grandiose 80% ideas, but what he wants to manage.
RE: “The vast majority of the GS is not going to adopt a progressive sexuality they find no scriptural warrant for.”
I agree — but I think what Porter envisions is that 80% of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion will be okay with maintaining communion with a COE that [i]does[/i] adopt a progressive sexuality.
Dr. Seitz says: “First, it misrepresents the CofE reality. Second, it is terribly wrong when it comes to the wider AC. He apparently does not grasp this. The vast majority of the GS is not going to adopt a progressive sexuality they find no scriptural warrant for. But somehow he has persuaded himself this is about temperament and interpersonal dynamics, and in addition he has the outcome dreadfully wrong.”
I think he “grasps it”, he just doesn’t care. They’re just using flowery word soup to put lipstick on the pig it really is. They, IMHO, truly want the traditionals to either walk or acquiesce(Sarah’s point). Perhaps they do underestimate what a mess it will really be–but, as usual, all that matters is “the agenda”, and “they” or whoever will just deal with the fallout as it comes.
I agree with Pageantmaster above that the Anglican way IS looking to the words of Jesus and the teachings of the Scriptures as we approach ecclesial decision-making, but sadly that “Ship” sailed for these people a long time ago. It has long since been replaced with a manipulative free-for-all in the misnomer of “compassion” and “this is how I’m made” and “this is how I feel”. And for them it is utterly beside the point that, e.g., as a woman, I am technically “made” for 5+ husbands if I so choose, but that is not the teaching of Scripture, so thus that is not what I do nor behavior I expect blessed in the Church.
And while I am a traditional American, I am an American, born and bred all the same, and I find American behaviors, as demonstrated by TEC for YEARS, abhorrent, just for the record. Pageantmaster and Africans, etc. I am sorry re: those who have done this. As an American, it’s certainly not anything I ever wanted or believed right–especially considering the twisted, deceptive M.O. to get it where it is, and probably where it will continue to go.
#30 My note was perhaps unclear. I do think there will be attrition, and that Porter gets that. But I believe he thinks he has the figures right, and that is where I believe he is misguided.
#29 You may be right about Porter referring to maintaining communion. But I believe he is terribly misguided. After all, the communion is already quite prepared to go their own way. At some point, the CofE will just be a matter of indifference.
As one can see on blogs, many liberals in the CofE don’t want there to be a communion, so it doesn’t matter to them. Has Porter got that far? I doubt it. I think he believes he can pull this psycho-dynamic thing off.
Full article on this in today’s Church Times which I just posted this morning
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/30-january/news/uk/sexuality-tension-threaten-to-undermine-c-of-es-shared-conversations
Thanks, Kendall (#32).
A very revealing article in the establishment Church Times, and not a comforting one at all. Very predictable spin, more of the same old same old attempt to convince as many folks as possible that institutional unity or relational unity trumps genuine theological unity. It boils down to the famous Dr. Phil question that the TV host so often asks guests on his show who are in severe relational conflicts: “[i]Do you want to be right, or in relationship?[/i]”
In a postmodern, anti-dogmatic age that denies that there is any such thing as objective, universal truth, and in an age where “tolerance” is the highest virtue and “bigotry” or “prejudice” is the worst of vices, the implicit agenda set forth in the Church Times has lots of appeal because it goes with rather than against the flow of the dominant cultural currents. What do you expect in a state church? That’s not a bug, it’s a feature of the whole system.
Which is precisely why I, as an American Anglican, am so deeply suspicious of established religion. I never have trusted, and I never will trust, a state church, including the CoE. I am allergic to Constantinian religion, to Elizabethan Settlements that are imposed on the Church for the benefit of the state.
To me, history shows all too clearly that state church arrangements always in the end result in the corruption and undermining of the Church. For (IMHO) the “unequal yoke” between the political, economic, and cultural establishment and the Church always, and I mean, ALWAYS, ends up benefiting the State at the expense of the Church. Everywhere you look in Europe, you see that sad but predictable outcome has played itself out again and again. Whether you look at the state Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandanavia, or the Reformed state churches in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland, or the Catholic state churches in southern Europe, the pitiful and pathetic demise of the Church is evident everywhere.
That’s one of the main reasons why I continue to assert that global Anglicanism is in dire need of a drastic New Reformation, a sort of Anglican Vatican II, that can overhaul our inherited system that is now plainly moribund and obsolete. To use an architectural analogy, the CoE, like other established churches, resembles the grand old Gothic cathedrals of Europe. Gothic cathedrals are totally dependent on external support via the famous technique of “flying buttresses.” Remove that external support, and the cathedral immediately implodes and collapses into ruin. It was never designed to stand on its own, and indeed it cannot.
It is the same with churches “by law established.” They were designed in such a way that they are completely dependent on the external support of the state, or at least the general culture. In former times, eaarlier generations literally couldn’t conceive of a future time when the interests of the Church and the State would become not only divergent but sharply contradictory. Yet that is precisely the situation we are now in everywhere in the Global North. The momentous sea change from being a majority Christian culture to a minority Christian culture, or from a basically pro-Christian culture to an increasingly secular and indeed aggressively anti-Christian culture, is the single most important fact of our time. It literally changes everything for those of us who are determined to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ, no matter what the cost, to us, or to the institutional forms of the Church that we have long known and cherished, but which are now counter-productive.
Let me pause here, and resume shortly with my little rant.
David Handy+
Continuing from my #33,
Getting back to the famous question that Dr. Phil loves to pose to his guests on the show, “Do you want to be right or to be in relationship??, I contend that for Christians that answer wholly depends on whether the conflict involves a Romans 14 type of issue where we can legitimately agree to disagree, as agreeably as we can, or whether it in fact involves a Galatians 1 type issue, where two different gospels are pitted against each other, and thus mutual tolerance is out of the question, because those gospels are mutually exclusive and one of them is false and heretical.
Yesterday, most of us heard an epistle reading from 1 Cor. 8, where Paul addresses the then contemporary dispute over whether food sacrificed to idols in pagan temples in Corinth was an acceptable food source for Corinthian Christians. As an apostle, he was able to render a definitive answer to whether this was a matter of adiaphora or not. Our basic root problem in modern Anglicanism is the bishops, as successors of the apostles, no longer are able to agree on what is adiaphora and what is not. Put another way, we simply have no mechanism in global Anglicanism at this point whereby such disputes can be settled. Without a central magisterium, we have no means of resolving such bitter and persistent conflicts, where foundational clashes of underlying worldviews are “tearing the fabric” of the Anglican Communion to shreds.
I continue to assert that this is a simply intolerable state of affairs. There MUST be a place where the buck stops. That doesn’t require an infallible central authority like the Pope is held to be by Roman dogma, but it does require a FINAL authority who can render a decision that is binding on all provinces of Anglicanism. I continue to assert the un-Protestant claim that we simply MUST develop a way of limiting the autonomy of wayward, rogue provinces like TEC, or of rogue bishops within provinces, or rogue diocesan synods. There are various conceivable ways of doing that which don’t necessarily lead to ecclesial tyranny. For example, I continue to plead for the creation of an Anglican international judiciary, a sort of Anglican Supreme Court, that could act as a geniuine check on the currently unchecked powers of diocesan and provincial synods by declaring the unbiblical actions of rogue provinces and diocese null and void, overturning them and not allowing them to stand. I recognize, of course, that the chances of any such revolution in our polity system being accepted by all paities is absolutely nil. Not just small and remote, but non-existent.
But so what? We passed the point of no return a long time ago. As the Master warned us, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And it hasn’t. The Anglican Communion, as we have heretofore known it, is already hopelessly and irreparably divided. And that is precisely because we have been in fact TOO TOLERANT. I don’t know about other readers, but for me, the two biblical texts that tend to haunt me the most when it comes to our bitter and unending disputes within contemporary Anglicanism are these two unpopular and disturbing passages:
1. From the harsh warning given to the Church of Thyatira in Rev. 2, where after the Lord Jesus praises the leaders in Thyatira for their courage under persecution and all their good works, he blasts them for their lack of discernment, saying, “[i]But I have this against you, you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet, who has seduced my people into sexual immorality…[/i]” (Rev. 2:19). Need I say more? There is such a thing as being overly tolerant.
2. From the last verse in the book of Judges, where the narrator bemoans the chaos and sheer anarchy that resulted from the lack of a central magisterium in ancient Israel. “[i]Because there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes.[/i]” (Judges 21:25). Some folks, and not just Broad Churchmen or Latitudinarians, might well reply that such a situation of untrammelled freedom sounds pretty good to them. All I can say is that, for me, anarchy is the worst possible state for the Church to be in. And what we are seeing today in contemporary Anglicanism is nothing less than sheer anarchy, both theological and disciplinary anarchy. I hate it. I can’t stand it.
Pausing again, before finishing with my last installment.
David Handy+
Concluding my series of inflammatory comments and polarizing assertions (#33-34),
Finally, let me appeal to readers who have endured my little tirade thus far to consider this. The celebrated Windsor Report of October 2004, the gold standard for excellence in communicating across the Great Divide in contemporary Anglicanism, rightly called attention to the fact that settling our long and bitter disputes and ending our Anglican Civil War depends on being able to determine what is adiaphora and what is not, where we can legitimately agree to differ and where we can’t because the gospel itself is at stake. About ten paragraphs in that outstanding Windsor Report were devoted to that all-important issue. They defined the issue correctly. But alas, that blue-ribbon group punted the ball on the most essential issues when it comes to HOW we will ever be able to decide what is adiaphora and what isn’t. What is even more discouraging is that, in the more than a decade of endless strife since then, no significant progress whatsoever has been made toward achieving any clarity on how we will ever be able to resolve that fundamental conflict.
That is hardly surprising, given our history as Anglicans, with our proud claim to being the roomiest and most inclusive branch of the Christian Church to be found on this planet. But if it’s not shocking, it still is disheartening to me. So I’ll close by making two final assertions, as is my provocative wont and style.
A. In the end, settling such intractable, bitter disputes as the one that is now tearing global Anglicanism apart inevitably comes down to the inescapable issue of authority. In the final analysis, resolution of this perpetual crisis depends on us coming up with a way to answer this prior question: WHO gets to have the last word and settle the matter (at least for the time being)? [b]Who gets to decide what is adiaphora and what isn’t??[/b]
That is the million dollar question. In Paul’s day, as an apostle and the founder of the church in Corinth, he had the authority and power to decide those sorts of disputes, and his decision was final and binding (although 2 Cor. 10-13 shows us that even his apostolic authority didn’t go undisputed in Corinth).
I earnestly contend that we can no longer afford the luxury of pretending that we can get along without some final and definite global authority that can render a similar final decision in all such disputed matters today, a final decision that is binding on all provinces of Anglicanism. The alternative is continuing chaos, strife, and yes, sheer anarchy.
B. [b]Last but not least, we have to face head-on the grim reality that the noble old Elizabethan Settlement is dead[/b] (or at least moribund, but I say it’s already dead and needs to be buried, with honor). The harsh reality that we’re still generally in denial about but which we must come to grips with as best we can is that Global North civilization has turned its back on biblical, classical Christianity. The American experiment of the celebrated “separation of Church and State” has devolved and degenerated into the DIVORCE of Christianity and public life. The millenium and a half marriage between Western culture and orthodox Christianity has come to an end, and all that’s left is the dividing up of the assets. The bitter reality we have to face is that the powers that be in Western/Global North culture (or at least the dominant cultural elites as represented by our most prestigious universities and the mass media) are increasingly hostile to authentic Christianity, and only bestow favor on the “progressive” side of Christianity that has surrendered to the cultural zeitgeist and keeps futilely trying to appease Christianity’s “cultured despisers” (to use Schliermacher’s famous phrase from 1799). However, app0easement never works.
To return to my cathedral analogy, the fundamental challenge we face in contemporary orthodox Anglicanism is nothing less than redesigning and overhauling our beloved Anglican heritage for the “brave new world” we face in the 21st century. We must face unflinchingly the unpalatable and deeply unsettling reality that we have irretrievably and hopelessly lost the external support of the state and the wider culture. Anglicanism, in its classic “Elizabethan” form, was and is as utterly dependent on that external support as the magnificent Gothic cathedrals that are one of the splendors of European history. We MUST start facing the daunting challenge of overhauling Prayerbook religion for the stern demands placed upon it by our increasingly secular, pluralistic, postmodern, cynical, and yes, openly anti-Christian social environment.
So what if many of our liberal former colleagues refuse to go along with this radical redesign of Anglicanism? They really aren’t a part of the same spiritual family after all, because they’ve fallen for a lie form the pit of Hell, and been deceived into accepting a new “gospel” of tolerance and inclusivity (and moral and theological relativism) that is no gospel at all. Instead, it is rank heresy, intolerable, utterly unacceptable heresy. If our liberal foes wouldn’t accept even the watered-down check on provincial autonomy represented by the new Anglican Covenant hatched by the deeply flawed process dreamed up by Rowan Williams, they certainly won’t accept the far more serious check provided by a brand new, unprecedented central magisterium (perhaps of the Supreme Court variety that I’ve proposed) dominated by the Global South, as it would inevitably and rightly be because of their numerical and spiritual dominance in the Anglican world today. Well, so what? Who cares? I admit that I don’t.
So in answer to Dr. Phil’s question, or the implicit question posed by the seemingly attractive and culturally popular style of “reconciliation” being promoted by Lambeth Palace and the CoE House of Bishops (not to mention the ACC and St. Andrew’s House/ACO), namely, in answer to the ultimate question: “[i]Would you rather be right or in relationship[/i]?”, I know not what course others may take, but I would reply with a frank, unashamed, and unequivocal answer,
“[i]Because the gospel itself is at stake, I prefer to be right.[/i]”
Here endth the rant.
David Handy+
Madeleine Davies writes in the Church Times article:
[blockquote] “It is widely acknowledged that there exists a great deal of anxiety at both ends of a polarised debate. Conservative Evangelicals fear being branded as bigoted if they honestly share their theological convictions about same-sex relationships.” [/blockquote]
I am glad she had the courage to write that – its not the sort of thing that the hierarchy of the Church of England like to be said.
I am also glad that the Church Times reported that the largest orthodox evangelical group has called on its members not to participate:
[blockquote] “In October last year, the conservative group Reform called on its members not to participate in the conversation. It warned that the process was “deeply flawed” and that they would be asked to “accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation – as though there could be two gospels, equally valid”.” [/blockquote]
Reform is now working more closely with the Church Society, which holds the patronage of many evangelical parishes across England, and with AMiE, reinforcing Madeleine’s point about “a polarised debate”.
I have not had any feedback on how many Reform ministers are following this advice, although Julian Mann in Sheffield added his voice to it: http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/why-i-am-not-negotiating-on-christian.html.
Managed conversations followed by something like the local option for gay marriage, has been my best guess of what’s coming.
Looking forward to the discussion that is almost upon the church, the orthodox seem to be in disarray: disunited, lacking leadership, no plan of action as far I can see, no engagement with the media. It is not that I expect the orthodox to persuade the church – but it would be lovely if, just once, they could make their case as passionately, as publicly and as clearly as possible.
A distinguished lay former conservative evangelical, Jayne Ozanne – onetime member of the Archbishops’ Council, who once warned the Council that in the CofE an increasing number will come to fear man rather than God, and predicted a coming persecution of the church – has today come out as gay and accepted a leadership role at the “Accepting Evangelicals”.
#38 — do you mean in TEC or in CofE?
CofE.
1. If one thinks of the various CofE bodies who might imaginably co-ordinate on this issue – Reform, Fulcrum, Forward in Faith. There seems to be no common action and no shared sense of how to proceed. Their divisions over ecclesiology or gender seem impossible for them to overcome as they face this issue.
2. I note a gentle diet of stories being streamed into the media from the pro-change camp – moving stories of truthfulness and transformation, vulnerability and suffering. I by no means discount such but I also know there are other tales that are not achieving anything like the same public significance.
I imagine a local option will go something along these lines – marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one women remains normative for the church’s doctrine but in exceptional circumstances, with all pastoral sensitivity and with the permission of their bishop clergy may themselves enter same sex marriages, and solemnize such unions. (One may note already one priest who, last summer, very publicly disregarded the bishops’ guidance on same sex marriage – remains in post).
It’s not that I think the orthodox can persuade the rest of the church – the CofE has never been able to resist adopting a change in civil marriage law in its history – it’s that I pray they find a way to make their case as persuasively, a passionately and as clearly as possible.
[blockquote] “It is not that I expect the orthodox to persuade the church – but it would be lovely if, just once, they could make their case as passionately, as publicly and as clearly as possible.”[/blockquote]
Okay, but wouldn’t that just be playing into the hierarchy’s hands? Going on past performance (even as far as back as the “Indaba” at Lambeth 2008) isn’t it reasonable to expect that the “shared conversations” will be managed so as to *prevent* any clear public orthodox witness? In that case, Reform’s tactic of urging its members not to participate in the shared conversations surely is sensible?
Reform gave plenty of public warning – the whole point of their 6 October 2014 press release was that they regarded the process as geared towards reaching a public conclusion and therefore called on the bishops of the CofE to intervene to ensure “that the outcome of the conversations is genuinely open-ended”: http://reform.org.uk/news/src/archive/10-2014. The bishops chose not to do that, which is their option, but such things have consequences.
Its like the orthodox Primates’ decision not to attend the Dublin Primates Meeting in 2011 because they considered that ++Williams and Canon Kearon would just manipulate the outcome. Their tactic proved very effective – I doubt anyone now remembers what was discussed at Dublin, but many people remember the protest. The Church Times article which Kendall linked above indicates that some people are seeing the same effect working itself out in CofE. These conversations may end up being remembered chiefly for the fact that the orthodox evangelicals boycotted them.
Of course, the protest at Dublin wasn’t an end in itself – it was just the natural outcome of the Primates’ assessment that none of their ends could be gained by participating, and that they had other fish to fry.
[blockquote] “Looking forward to the discussion that is almost upon the church, the orthodox seem to be in disarray: disunited, lacking leadership, no plan of action as far I can see…”[/blockquote]
That’s a fair point, although wouldn’t you say that it describes the orthodox generally over the past 50 years? I have recently been thinking back to the antics of Southwark bishops Mervyn Stockwood and John Robinson in the 60s. Their assaults on basic tenets of faith were no less outrageous than what is going on now, yet the response of the orthodox in the Church of England could kindly be called unco-ordinated and weak. Ironically, one of the firmest voices against them was that of a lay person, the very elderly C. S. Lewis (not nearly as famous then as now), while many leading bishops and clergy had difficulty stating a public defence of the faith, and this continued in ensuing decades.
As for now, there does seem to be greater unity by some people in some respects. Church Society and Reform have been working together for over a year, and now AMiE as well. But the Chairman of CS indicated a few months ago that their strategy is focused elsewhere than on the shared conversations: “I am thrilled that ReNew 2014 is committed to the flourishing of local Anglican churches both within and without the Church of England.” See http://www.renewconference.org.uk/.
The “both within and without” seems significant. In a sense, both these elements are not new – there are already CofE churches who do not just accept whatever the hierarchy decides, who withhold funds or who do not invite their bishops to speak or confirm; and there are also churches that identify as Anglican and were planted from CofE churches, yet have no legal existence in the CofE and do not desire one. These have been scattered and isolated elements, but that may be changing.
If these various elements become a common movement with endorsement from foreign Primates, then why would the orthodox need the CofE anymore? And the prospect of an “Anglican Alternative” in England where one third to one half of the population still call themselves Anglican is likely to worry the CofE bishops more than a contrary press campaign.
#40. Thanks, and well stated.
I think the various tribes of ‘orthodoxy’ in the CofE know what they oppose in this instance but don’t share all that much beyond that. Your prediction seems pretty sound to me. The evangelical type might want to distinguish ‘marriage’ from ‘blessing’ (even RDW wanted to do that) but will likely lose that battle and the public won’t much care anyway.
I should add. The ability of strong conservative parishes to hunker down and resist things they do not like, and succeed at it, is much greater than in the US. Our polity ends up being far more top down, and without exception, down to the ground level of a diocese. And most strong a-c parishes–with a natural independent streak–are already on side with the sexual progressivism of TEC. There may be an exception or two left.
#44.
I disagree. In the established church, there is more pressure toward uniformity.
#45 Ever been to St Ebbs in Oxford or kindred parishes? I can’t think of any clear analogy in the US. They have enormous capacity to hunker down and ignore their Bishops, etc.
“He reveals the deep things of darkness
and brings deep shadows into the light”
Job 12:22
The Archbishops have made it pretty clear where they want to lead the Church of England, from here:
Archbishop John Sentamu in House of Lords Debate on Same Sex Marriage June 2013:
Archbishop Justin Welby in House of Lords Debate on Same Sex Marriage:
The same link also quotes the sections of the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1:10 that their plans are in breach of, together with the warnings of the Global South Primates in January 2013, the GAFCON Chairman’s warning in July 2013 and the GAFCON II Communique.
In January 2014 the Archbishop of Uganda also warned:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has repeated his intentions many times:
and there are other comments in a similar vein
My view on Justin Welby remains that which I gave here with the one exception that there is some movement on evangelism, but otherwise he seems to be a man on a mission, confident after his indaba successes at bringing in women bishops that through his FacCon programme and good disagreement he can drive in, if not acceptance of same sex blessings, then space for them to take place as a ‘local option’ in England without consequences for the CofE breaching Lambeth 1:10, the Windsor Report, the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Communique and the consistent warnings given by the Global South. I have seen nothing to change my view [would that I had]:
#46 – I agree that the treatment of orthodox evangelicals in UK has been different than the US, but I have wondered if it will reach its own tipping point. For the decades before 2003 or so, I would have said there was something of a live-and-let-live attitude in TEC between its evangelical and orthodox parishes and their more revisionist diocesan and national leadership, but once Jefforts-Schori came into power, tolerance for that from the national leadership ended pretty quickly.
well this is disheartening. unfortunately having witnessed the continued pew sitting of conservatives after the ridiculous actions of TEC here doesn’t incline me to believe that there will be a tsunami wave of desertions over there. as far as them ‘learning any lessons’ from the steady diminishing of numbers of the denomination here, i seriously doubt they are even aware of it and if they did TEC would be giving a thousand excuses about the reasons for it.
May I bring back up the old Dr. Phil question that I harped on above in my dreadfully long series (#333-35)? I suggest that it’s highly relevant. I prefer to give ++Welby the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether or not he himself favors the pro-gay agenda, as ++Rowan Williams obviously and undeniably did. He claims to hold to biblical and classical Christian views that completely rule out homosexual behavior as innately sinful, and I hope and trust that he’s sincere about that.
Instead, ++Welby’s disastrous mistake is that he gives every appearance of being inclined to answer Dr. Phil’s trademark question the wrong way. That is, I presume that ++Welby is genuinely convinced that it’s more important to stay in relationship than to be right in this bitterly polarized situation. I think a great many people in the Anglican world, including many leaders who personally hold biblical views on sex and other hot-button Culture War issues, would also admit, if pushed, “I prefer to be in relationship than to insist on being right.” After all, that’s the course of least resistance, and most people will almost inevitably choose to take the course of least resistance. It’s as predictable as water flowing downhill.
Thus, it is scarcely surprising that so many dedicated Anglican leaders, who are otherwise striving to serve Christ and spread the gospel as faithfully as they can, have gone AWOL in this fight. Because the brave decision to go against the flow in this case means not only swimming or boating upstream against the dominant cultural currents in our amoral, permissive, and relativistic age. It also means bucking the whole dominant tendency in our inherited Anglican way of seeking to downplay doctrinal differences in order to form as inclusive a church as possible. It can be strongly argued that the CoE has in fact been under the dominant influence of the Broad Church or Latitudinarian wing since the Act of Toleration in 1689 made tolerance rather than faithfulness the highest value when intractable church disputes are involved. Who would ever want to be accused of being “narrow-minded,” “rigid,” “rigoristic,” or “exclusive?” None of us, even the most conservative among us, likes to have to bear such derogatory labels.
Having earlier cited two biblical texts that tend to haunt me (Rev. 2:19 and Judges 21:25), let me in closing invoke yet a third. It is in fact the one that haunts me the most, and I myself often find it a hard saying that makes me uneasy. But I contend that it may be the single most important NT text for us Anglicans to take to heart and take seriously in the midst of our all agonizing turmoil, confusion, and strife. It comes from the end of the Sermon on the Mount.
Here it is. (Drum roll, please…)
[b]Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to…[/b]
Well, what? Harmony, institutional stability, peace, inclusivity, and less strained relationships? (blah, blah, blah) Does it lead to at least keeping the channels of communication open to the unbelieving, skeptical world outside our doors that takes it for granted that the only reason for opposing “gay rights” is ignorance and bigotry? Is that what the wide door and the easy path leads to??
Not according to Jesus. According to Matthew 7. that tempting option of the wide gate and the easy path leads to nothing less than destruction, utter ruination. And in the wider context of Matthew as a whole, that means eternal destruction in the fires of Gehenna.
For as the Master goes on to say, [b]”For the gate is NARROW, and the way is hard that leads to life[/b].” And therefore it’s hardly surprising that there are inevitably few who are willing to take it.
Why does this hard saying of Jesus haunt me so much? Well, not least, because it goes totally against the grain of our beloved Anglican tradition. Because it clearly implies that what is broad is bad, and what is narrow is good. That the popular way that appeals to the majority of people is deceptive and even destructive, whereas the stern and demanding way that only an elite few are williing to travel by is the divinely appointed way.
In closing, let me try to leaven my “contrarian” views with a bit of humor, in hopes that “a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down.” Those who know that I’m an ardent advocate of “3-D Christianity” (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic) sometimes ask me how that corresponds to our traditional three parties in Anglicanism, which I often jokingly refer to as “the low and lazy, the high and crazy, and the broad and hazy” parties. Or they even put me on the spot by asking, “Fr. Handy, are you high church, low church, or broad church?”
I either get a laugh or a look of utter bewilderment when I respond, “Actually, none of the above. If you really want to know, I think of myself as a Narrow Church Anglican!” I’m the opposite of a Broad Churchman. I’m firmly convinced that 21st century Anglicanism needs a New Reformation, a sort of Anglican Vatican II, that will transform us, yes, even the stodgy old CoE, into a disciplined and highly committed church that is willing to enter the Kingdom of God through the narrow gate Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:13-14. The essence of my call for a New Reformation is not, as it might seem, the need to come up with, for the first time, a viable but non-tyrannical central magisterium (preferably of the judicial variety rather than the papal sort), although as I insisted above in #33-35, I do stand by that audacious and revolutionary claim.
No, the real essence of the New Rerormation that Anglicanism so desperately needs, and in fact all “mainstream” Christianity in the Global North needs, is to forsake once and for all, our accustomed Erastian, Constantinian ways that pursued the futile dream of a truly national church, a truly Christian culture. For that dream, pursued for over a millenium, has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be an utter illusion, a mere fantasy, a mirage and delusion.
No, the essence of the New Reformation we need so badly is nothing less than a communal decision to abandon that futile quest to build a broad church that is able to attract and hold the vast majority of the population precisely because it demands so little, and to embrace instead the Master’s call to enter by the narrow gate of repentance, obedience, and faith, and to walk the way of the cross, that turns out to be the only way to eternal life.
Here endeth my second and final rant.
David Handy+
Hi Pageantmaster at #47, you were indeed prescient last October, unfortunately.
The parallels between CofE’s current situation and TEC’s in about 2001-2003 are strong. The eventual schism within TEC (6-8 years later) could have been prevented by better leadership. And now the CofE leadership seem intent on driving the orthodox to make their own arrangements.
Hi Fr Dale at #45, Dr Seitz is correct – there are significant legal protections for parishes and their clergy in CofE. He rightly mentions St Ebbe’s Oxford, and there are many other churches which do not conform to the CofE leadership in terms of ordination of women or same sex blessings.
But, “many” still means only a small percentage of the churches in CofE. If we take seriously the Lord’s injunction to go forth and make disciples, the orthodox won’t be content just to sit within safe havens.
MichaelA,
This also reminds me of the Communion Partner Bishops in TEc who were forming ‘islands of safety’ within TEc. Ask Bishop Lawrence about how that worked out for him. What is the point of those “legally protected” parishes and clergy staying in a church that no longer reflects their traditional values and is slowly pathologizing their views. Human flourishing and good disagreement is replacing repentance and confession. What is happening in CoE is not really different than the trajectory taken by TEc. Eventually it comes down to whether the orthodox will leave, be evicted or acquiesce.
Communion Partner bishops blew away with the Wind-sor Bishops. All forgotten coverlets like leaves in the Garden.
Fr Dale, in the long term I agree with you, but I am just pointing out that there are significant differences between CofE and TEC.
I also note that you are talking about TEC bishops whereas Dr Seitz was talking about CofE congregations. I know of at least two congregations in CofE who haven’t had anything to do with their bishop for over 15 years, and no-one can do anything about it. That sort of thing cuts both ways of course.
I agree that orthodox Christians shouldn’t be content with such a situation. They should actively work to transform the church back to what it should be. I get the impression that that is what Reform and Church Society and AMiE intend to do and have been working on for over a year now, but its difficult to tell.
55. writes: ” I know of at least two congregations in CofE who haven’t had anything to do with their bishop for over 15 years, and no-one can do anything about it.”
So, no visits, no annual reports, no communication whatsoever with the Diocese, and no funds whatsoever sent to the Diocese?
Unless the Diocesan canons differ mightily from those I’ve worked with, someone can certainly do something about it. The Bishop can declare the parish a mission, and appoint a new vestry.
Hi Luke, I think you might be viewing this in American terms, rather than English.
Its not diocesan canons you have to refer to, but Acts of Parliament. Vestries haven’t existed in England since 1921, although I believe the word is still used informally. A church is administered by the Parochial Church Council, and I don’t think a bishop has any power of appointment or removal over a PCC at all.
The bishop has a limited power if the PCC can’t reach a decision on some matter over which it is accorded jurisdiction by law (e.g. maintenance of church property), in which case the bishop can step in and exercise that power for the PCC. But I don’t think the Bishop has any power to exclude anyone from the PCC.
I also can’t think of any power whereby a bishop could declare a parish to be a mission (and the CofE doesn’t have missions in the same sense anyway).
One thing the bishop could do is revoke a priest’s licence to act as a clergy in the Church of England. However, I know of only two times in recent years when liberal bishops have tried that for doctrinal reasons. The first was in 2002 by the Bishop of Worcester, and most of the parish walked out with the priest. They are now an independent Anglican congregation down the road. CofE bishops are not keen to revisit that episode.
The other time was a rather famous one in 2005 where the Bishop of Southwark revoked the licence of one of his priests for arranging an irregular ordination service. The priest appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who referred it to a committee of bishops, who restored the priest’s licence.
Re your first question, so far as I am aware no dissident parish denies repayment of basic ministry expenses to the diocese for their property. But some withhold anything beyond that, including “parish share”. Nothing can be done about it, nor if a parish simply doesn’t ever invite their bishop to attend for confirmation services or any other purpose.
My information is not always current – I have lived in UK but now I only visit about once every couple of years and maintain contact with friends and family there. Perhaps a T19 member who is resident in CofE like Pageantmaster or driver8 can give you more information.
Humble apologies for a mis-read; thank you for clarification!
I’m afraid I was thinking back to our former US parish’s very unfortunate experiences.
Nevertheless, I am reminded of the US experience in that the TEC leadership far underestimated the effect of their actions. Famously, and tellingly, the spokesperson for TEC said on CNN in 2003 that “this will all blow over”. Many believed that – I think they imagined it would be like women’s ordination in the 1970’s. But it was not. The effect on the membership, especially active membership, and health of many parishes and diocese in the US has been disastrous, with no sign of things getting better. And the image of TEC today, especially after all the litigation – well, there could hardly be a less respected church denomination in the US today.
59 wrote, “And the image of TEC today, especially after all the litigation – well, there could hardly be a less respected church denomination in the US today.”
The end of your statement is very true, but I don’t the non-respecting constituency is all that large. Who outside of ECUSA cares about where it stands, and the reasons whereby it is where it is?
OK – you can say that all the orthodox in GAFCON and the FWC really and truly care about the souls of ECUSAns…and I’m sure some of them do. But, I think most of them are more interested in their own lives, and how they live them.
Since ECUSAns do know the options, and have made their choices, I don’t get very much worked up over where they are.
I cannot imagine that many still within ECUSA care. I have some good friends, with whom I’ve discussed all this on a number of occasions…they simply are not interested in what has happened; rather they are content to go on as they have gone since the 1950s. Judgement Day, if they think about it at all, seems very far away in time and space.
Hi Luke at #58, no need to apologise at all.
And it appears that the Bishops of the Church of England may have already found a way around all the legal safeguards – as I wrote above, it is very difficult for them to touch the properties or an incumbent minister, but instead they have found something far more effective and devilish:
It appears that they have issued a directive that every candidate for holy orders in the Church of England must be asked whether he agrees with the ordination of women. If he says no, he must be refused ordination or a licence to practice, as the case may be: http://anglicanmainstream.org/most-serious-threat-to-reformed-anglicans-since-archbishop-laud/
Some of the largest and most successful evangelical congregations in the Church of England believe that the bible does not permit women to be priests or bishops. Ironically, they are also the churches that produce the largest share of candidates for ministry, at a time when the CofE is complaining of a shortage of candidates!
This move by the bishops appears designed to cut off the supply of such ordinands at a stroke, and at the same time ensure that orthodox evangelicals of complementarian belief disappear from the Church of England within a generation.