No great enthusiasm for a Covenant

The Covenant Design Group

While the Covenant Design Group meet to draw up the next phase of the Anglican Covenant it is worth going back to earlier comments on the Covenant (before the Draft Anglican Covenant was shared).

A great many comments on the Covenant are now buried in the 322 responses to the Windsor Report. Comment addressed the principle of a Covenant and all comments, especially those of detail, were coloured by Appendix Two: Proposal for the Anglican Covenant which was widely panned and quickly hidden at the back of a filing cabinet.

A caveat: I do not pretend these are adequate summaries of the papers. I have largely tried to pick out the salient points. [Links are mostly to pdf documents]

Norman Doe’s analysis of the responses was that

Approximately one third favours the covenant principle and Windsor draft, a third supports the principle but not the draft, and a third rejects both principle and draft. Though many agree (eg) about the nature of a covenant, within these three groups respondents are divided as to:

(a) whether a covenant accords with the spirit of Anglicanism

(b) its capacity to achieve unity, reconciliation, order and stability

(c) its form (whether it should be descriptive or prescriptive or both)

(d) its subject-matter (whether it should treat (eg) adiaphora, scriptural interpretation)

(e) its content (some welcome the draft, but others feel (eg) that: its commitments are unworkable; its understanding of autonomy-in-communion is incorrect; and giving in contentious communion issues a pastoral ministry to Canterbury and a jurisdiction to the Instruments of Unity is too curial); and:

(f) mode of adoption and a disciplinary mechanism to enforce the covenant (many feel the use of law ensures commitment, but for others a covenant should not bind).

(Professor Doe was almost certainly the most significant contributor to the Windsor Covenant draft.)

The Australian response, has a great deal to say about autonomy and the relationship between member churches based on 60 experience with their own constitution. They propose that:

(5) … each member Church has plenary authority at its own discretion, to make statements as to its faith ritual ceremonial or discipline and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, …

provided changes comply with the fundamental declaration set out in the document. Autonomy requires subsidiarity (17). Autonomy is balanced by a duty on members to ‘self-limit the exercise of autonomy where to do so is in the interests of the Communion.’ (18). They propose processes for reception of change (22-25) and conflict resolution (27-31).

They also set out what seems like a demand. Only if the Covenant were to follow the ‘Fundamental Declarations and Ruling Principles in the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia’ would it be acceptable – remove or add anything and they would find it ‘more difficult’ to adopt.

The Scottish Response proposes that ‘Covenant’ should not mean a document or legal framework binding the Communion together, but should be a verb describing the process by which members of the Communion work together. There would not need to be ‘a’ covenant but as many covenants as there are members describing the relationship between the ‘mother plant’ and its offshoots.

The Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (IATDC) report naturally calls for more theological input into the resolution of ecclesial conflict. It begins (section 1) with a theological exposition of the term and substance of ‘covenant’ (noun and verb) on the assumption that conflict has been the normal condition of church life from the beginning (3.1) [a shameless plug here for the Seminar on Conflict Ecclesiology]. The Covenant should clarify and simplify, reflecting both ‘narrative’ and ‘visionary’ aspects of covenant (2.2). It should reflect the history of Anglicanism as well as the present and a covenant for vision (as opposed to a narrowly juridical covenant 2.5) must be effective in energising mission (2.3). It must be dynamic(2.4). Subsidiarity is important (3.2). Time will need to be taken (4.2).

IATDC raises, but does not resolve the question of interpretation:

(3.3) These observations suggest an important corollary to the concept of covenant-making: any covenant requires an instrument to interpret it. There is no such thing as a self-interpreting covenant any more than there are self-interpreting scriptures. A covenant implies an interpretive body to decide on what level of polity it is best addressed and whether or to what extent it has been breached.

The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations welcomed a Covenant in principle. It endorsed a foundation in canon law (7) but dissented from the IATDC suggestion that theologians should be the primary interpreters of the Covenant (9). Its concerns (14) were the possibility that Anglicanism might become a confessional denomination with implications for ecumenical partners; the ambiguities of ‘covenant’; and the danger of fossilising the structures of Anglicanism. However it saw potential benefits for ecumenical life.

There were responses from four voluntary groups: Affirming Catholicism (for further discussion) [Website ~ Report], Global South (a draft Covenant which contributed significantly to The Draft Anglican Covenant) [Website ~ Report], InclusiveChurch (supporting an aspirational covenant; opposing a contractual covenant) [Website ~ Report], and the Modern Churchpeople’s Union (against a covenant – theological and governmental discussion of issues and implications of covenant) [Website ~ Report].

Individual responses (I believe these were all solicited contributions but may be wrong in that):

Paul McPartlan reflected on primacy and inter-communion.

Tom Brown endorsed a covenant on the experience of the Diocese of Wellington (NZ) where covenant is a statement of ‘working friendship’ between bishop, priest and people – addressing relationships, not legal minutia.

Michael Doe was suspicious of the agenda driving the desire for a Covenant and its possible application and implications.

George Bruce recommended starting discussion with some greater clarity of terms. He questioned the need for and value of a legal Covenant, as opposed to a relational one.

Richard LeSueur saw the debate as a search for a new language of unity. A legal, contractual covenant would enable Anglicans to enter a new future as a Communion.

Cathy Ross felt that a mission-centred Covenant would be understood and attract support. It should be relational, dynamic, short, and fairly quickly achieved.

Martyn Percy was concerned about how a Covenant would be used – what would it add and who would effect it? He wished for more patience and opposed premature closure of either doctrinal conflict or debate on the Covenant.

Alan Perry commended the example of the Waterloo Declaration. (Between the Anglican and Lutheran Churches in Canada: its merits are brevity, simplicity, and a long slow period of implementation.)

Eileen Scully The process is being pushed faster than members’ decision making processes can properly accommodate: reception, including laity, is important. She would want a Covenant that was personal, integrative, honest about the past, not fixated on conflict resolution, owned by members. The key question remains: what is a Covenant for?

Stephen Noll proposed a constitutional Covenant focused on identity and polity with scripture as foundation and sufficient, interpreted in the plain and canonical sense. He explicitly excludes the North American Church as having ‘walked apart’. (See also an article on Global South site.)

Bruce Kaye (a response to the Draft Anglican Covenant 2007) said the process was too rushed and politicized. The Draft Covenant would probably exacerbate conflict and reduce mutual engagement. The Covenant is an experiment and should not be too rigid. He has interesting reflections on the way the Primates used the Covenant to legitimate attempts to intrude on TEC before a Covenant had been adopted. The language of Section 6 (with its mechanism to expel a member) is ‘disingenuous and to any ordinary reader looks plainly deceptive if not deceitful.’

Paul Bagshaw

Liberal Anglicans will stay and fight

Bishop John Saxbee
President of the Modern Churchpeople's Union

A response to Theo Hobson's article in The Guardian asserting that liberal anglicanism was finished.

Monday January 21, 2008

The Guardian - Letters

It had never occurred to me to think of Theo Hobson as a quitter. But when it comes to resisting homophobia in the church, that can be the only conclusion to be drawn from his Face to Faith article (January 19).

Liberal Anglicans are in for the long haul when it comes to promoting values and attitudes appropriate to the new way Jesus inaugurated. The Modern Churchpeople's Union is 110 years old this year, and during its time it has patiently promoted a liberal approach to doctrinal, moral and social issues so successfully that virtually all of those issues have resolved themselves into what is essentially a liberal consensus.

When it comes to tackling issues in human sexuality, I can promise Theo Hobson that liberals will not join him in throwing in the towel. We yield to no one when it comes to treasuring the sources of authority at the heart of Anglicanism and will continue to fight for an inclusive church where both Theo and his artlessly disguised Father Giles can find a place - and where homophobia will have no place at all.

Rt Rev John Saxbee

Bishop of Lincoln

==================

Other replies were from Rev Peter Graham, Canon Paul Oestreicher, Rev David Swain and Thomas Camps

Archbishop of Canterbury responds to the Primate of Canada

Archbishop Fred Hiltz
Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada

January 21, 2008 -- Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has written to Canadian Primate Archbishop Fred Hiltz to say that he "cannot support or sanction" foreign interventions in the affairs of the Canadian Church.

Archbishop Williams was responding to a letter Archbishop Hiltz wrote to all the Primates of the Anglican Communion earlier this year in which he explained where the Canadian Church was in its discussion of same-sex blessings.

This is odd. Does the Archbishop mean he "cannot" because he has no legal or other authority to do so? Or does he mean that he finds external interventions in the affairs of another Province wholly unacceptable?

I ask because of the clause on the Church of England's response to the Draft Anglican Covenant which suggested such interventions could be licensed:

We commit ourselves ...

(6) to refrain from intervening in the life of other Anglican churches (sc provinces) except in extraordinary circumstances where such intervention has been specifically authorised by the relevant Instruments of Communion.

Is this a difference of opinion between the English Bishops and the Archbishop? Or has he chosen his words with legal precision to give one impression whilst allow himself plenty of room to take an opposite view later?

The clause begs a number of questions. To start with:

• Under what conditions could intrusion by one Church into the jurisdiction of another be licensed?
  
• Would permission be given in advance? Or would the process be used to regularise intrusions that had happened without any wider authority?
  

• Will the assent of the Church intruded upon be required?
  
• What might be the implications for property, pensions, and financial trusteeships if the Anglican Communion authorises one Anglican body to transfer from one governing body to join another governing body within the Anglican Communion? And who would pay for the court case to sort that tangle out?
  
• By what authority could an Instrument of Communion permit such disruption of communion which amounts to schismatic action?
• How might (how could) the effects of such intrusion be undone when circumstances change?
• How would publicly permitting such intrusion be different in practice from the exclusion of the Province intruded upon from the Communion as a whole?

This whole self-contradictory idea is the denial of Communion.

Province A may think it's a brilliant idea to collect parishes, even whole dioceses, in Province B. But once this is both possible and legitimated it would be equally possible for Province C to intrude on Province A. And so on in potentially uncontrollable land-grabs. Once the "relevant Instruments of Unity" (plural, who can they mean?) gives permission and sets out their reasoning then other nearly comparable cases will be found and "exceptional circumstances" may well suddenly turn out to be quite common.

If, for example, the Southern Cone's intrusion into The Episcopal Church is retrospectively legitimated, or the Nigerian Church is invited to cherry-pick parishes in, say, Nevada, then what would stop The Episcopal Church from picking up the Diocese of Canterbury from England?

So what, exactly, does the Archbishop mean?

Lambeth Conference in no sense a law making body.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has officially launched the Lambeth Conference 2008. He said,

The Conference has never been a lawmaking body in the strict sense and it wasn’t designed to be one: every local Anglican province around the world has its own independent system of church law and there is no supreme court. But there was already in 1867 a deep concern to find ways short of passing formal laws that would make sure that Anglicans around the world acted in a responsible way towards each other and stayed faithful to the common inheritance of biblical and doctrinal faith. This is as much a challenge now as it was then. But the very fact of the Conference shows that we have always been willing to look for such ways of setting our common life on a firm basis so that we can act and serve more effectively in our world.

The Conference this year has two key points of focus: strengthening the sense of a shared Anglican identity among the bishops from around the world, and helping to equip bishops for the role they increasingly have as leaders in mission, involved in a whole variety of ways in helping the Church grow. Because none of this would happen without a deeper commitment to prayer and studying the Bible, this year’s Conference will begin with a couple of days’ retreat, in which we can spend time together in quiet and begin to direct our minds towards the central issues of faith. And as in previous Conferences, every day will begin with worship and Bible study in small groups.

'a lawmaking body in the strict sense'? What other sense is there? This is playing with words: it was never a lawmaking body. Full stop.

Of course in 1867 there were people who (despite the opposition of English Bishops who worked hard to keep the matter off the agenda) wanted an overt condemnation of Bishop Colenso whose supposed heresies had echoed all round the globe - at the speed of the postal service. Colenso's condemnation and Archbishop Gray's appointment of a rival bishop in Natal preciptated the first self-inflicted schism of the Anglican Communion.

Following the Conference a committee (including Bishop Cotterill of Grahamstown who had helped condemn Colenso) proposed an international court of doctrine.

(From something I wrote elsewhere:)
This had to be a voluntary court because such an arrangement would not have been acceptable, or even legal, in several parts of the Communion including America and Scotland as well as England. If a Province chose to recognise the constitution of the court it could refer cases from its own courts. The appeal would consider only those facts presented in the provincial courts and determine only whether the teaching of the accused was, or was not, permissible. The report proposed

That the Tribunal should use as standards of faith and doctrine by which its decisions shall be governed, those which are now in use in the United Church of England and Ireland; and that as to all matters not defined in such formularies, the judgements should be framed on any conclusions which shall be hereafter agreed to at any Council or Congress of the whole Anglican Communion; Provided always that no such conclusion be contradictory to any now existing standard or formulary of the Church of England; and provided further that the Synod of that Province of the Church from which the Appeal shall be sent, shall not have refused to accept such conclusion.

Judges would be drawn from a panel comprised of two bishops elected by each participating Province. The Archbishop of Canterbury would serve as President with a quorum of seven. They would sit with three theologians and three lawyers as assessors who would tender written advice. Judgement would be by at least a two-thirds majority of the judges, each giving their reasoned opinion in public and in writing.

The proposal had a number of inherent difficulties. The suggested standards of faith would have opened a Pandora’s box of disputation and nothing was said about the costs of the court. But in the main the recommendations went nowhere because the Anglican Communion was to develop as an associative body without central organs of coercive doctrinal authority.

Sound familiar? It's not so far from the use of the Primates' meeting as the final court for the adjudication of doctrine as envisaged in the Draft Anglican Covenant.

But the desire to see the Lambeth Conference as a legislature of any kind (with, presumably, the Archbishop of Canterbury as constitutional monarch, the ACC as executive, and the Primates as judiciary) is to read the trend of history in reverse.

In relation to doctrine the Lambeth Conference (and, in England, the development of synodical government) were alternative to legal proceedings. All the experience of nineteenth century legal approaches to doctrine was that such methods failed. There is no reason to think that twenty-first century lawyers will be better judges of doctrine than nineteenth-century lawyers. There is no reason to think that twenty-first century bishops will be any more careful of claims of justice than were nineteenth-century bishops. And the first case in which the Primates find against the promoters will result in the court being blamed for its perverse finding and sections of the church refusing its jurisdiction. Stalemate.

Conferences and synods developed (in part) in order to talk and to keep talking and to enable argument and disagreement to continue within manageable bounds. Discourse, not law, is what keeps a communion together, keeps doctrinal debate in play, and enable both the reassertion of orthodoxy and adaptation to novel circumstances to proceed with the assent and through the reception of the majority.

It won't please everyone. But, believe me, legal or semi-legal approaches to belief and faith will affront far, far more people.

---

Report of the Committee appointed under Resolution IX. of the Lambeth Conference, on the Constitution of a voluntary spiritual Tribunal, to which questions of Doctrine may be carried by Appeal from the Tribunals for the exercise of discipline in each Province of the Colonial Court. In Randall Davidson, ed., The Six Lambeth Conferences 1867-1920 (London, SPCK, 1920, re-issued 1929) pp. 62-65. Quotation p. 64. It was signed by Francis Fulford, Bishop of Montreal, as Chairman of the committee and by Henry Cotterill of Grahamstown as Secretary. Linked but separate reports were also submitted On the Courts of Metropolitans, and the Trial of a Bishop or Metropolitan, and a Scheme for conducting the Election of Bishops, when not otherwise provided for. Ibid. pp. 66-68.
 

Paul Bagshaw

Weak prayer for Christian Unity

Thanks to Dave Walker
of The Cartoon Church
(which may be the better sort)

First the good news,

ON THE INCLUSION OF ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS FULL AND EQUAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.

Resolved by the 192nd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, that the Diocese continue to demonstrate its commitment to radical hospitality and, that in accordance with the House of Bishops' Statement, Fall 2007, we "proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church" by:

1) Urging the Archbishop of Canterbury to extend to the duly elected and consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire an invitation to full participation in the Lambeth Conference of 2008;

2) Encouraging our Deputies to the 2009 General Convention to ensure compliance with Title III. Canon I. Section 2, which supports the full and equal participation of all persons regardless of sexual orientation in all aspects of the Church's ministries, lay and ordained;

3) Encouraging the General Convention to call for the development of public liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions.

On the other hand, Pluralist pointed out that the matter of the Unitarians and Chester Cathedral dates back to 2006. This year's insult to the Unitarians may be found in Padiham, Lancashire.

Several blogs (link to Episcopal Cafe) are reporting that the inhibited Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin has sacked 6 out of 8 of his Diocesan Standing Committee. These 6 refused to follow the wandering Bishop into the Province of the Southern Cone. The Bishop only wants people who are on his side.

And a reminder about The Anglican Centre in Rome working for greater closeness between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church. So to mention that those who wish to prevent the consecration of women as bishops argue that this step would further damage relations with Rome (a Church which still does not recognise the validity of any Anglican Orders) would clearly be in poor taste.

Women bishops in the CofE?

The Daily Telegraph reported last Saturday that the House of Bishops of the Church of England had hit an impasse.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones reported

when bishops met behind closed doors to thrash out proposals, there were heated exchanges and no final decision could be reached. It means that the Church is back at square one on the issue.

And it seems that a minority of bishops are blocking progress.

The Rt Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, said that the Church needed to make women bishops as soon as possible.

"There is no doubt that the House of Bishops contains a variety of views on the issue," he said.

"However, it's clear that a sizeable majority in the Church want to have women bishops and it's important that we don't put it on hold."

Of course a number of bishops and others have never really coped with the idea that women could ever be full members of the Church. This is another example of the resistance to the inevitable that was evident for decades in delaying women's ordination and has been evident for decades in resisting women's consecration.

The Church of England's preferred mode of operating - lets find a compromise - is wholly inadequate. It's a way of not operating because it give a veto to the most obdurate. There comes a time when the majority has to say 'here we go, we can do no other'.

Unitarians not welcome in Chester

From Times Online (Ruth Gledhill)

CHESTER CATHEDRAL has denounced the Unitarian Church for heretical views and banned its ministers and members from holding their annual service there.

...

Unitarians have been excluded after the Bishop of Chester, the Right Rev Dr Peter Forster, a leading evangelical, received a complaint about the unorthodox beliefs of some Unitarians.

He asked Canon Christopher Burkett, his chaplain and a residentiary canon at the cathedral, to carry out a review.

Canon Burkett concluded that the Unitarian service was in breach of the cathedral statutes, which stipulate that worship must be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England.

....

Betty Rathbone, a Unitarian from Norwich who sang in the choir at last year’s service in the cathedral, said that it felt like being plunged back in the religious warfare of the 16th and 17th centuries.

She said: “In the strict sense of the word, we are heretics because we do not subscribe to the beliefs of the Thirty-Nine Articles. We have become part of the struggle in the Church of England between the conservatives and the more liberal elements.”

-----------------

Nothing new, then. In1934 there was a row when two Unitarians preached by invitation in Liverpool Cathedral. Court proceedings were threatened. The bishops of the Northern Province collectively censured the Bishop of Liverpool, Albert David, for allowing such a thing.

Theo Hobson's challenge to Liberals

Face to faith ~ The Guardian, Saturday January 19, 2008

The Church of England's gay crisis makes clear that that liberal Anglicanism is finished, says Theo Hobson [Full article here]

This year Anglicanism will define itself with new clarity - the once-a-decade Lambeth conference will confirm the anti-liberal mood of the last five years. The humiliation of liberal Anglicanism will be complete. Its demand for equality for homosexuals has been thrown out in the most decisive possible way.

I think it's time to admit that the tradition of liberal Anglicanism is finished. Those Anglicans who carry on calling for an "inclusive church" are relics of a previous era. They should face the fact that the religious landscape has changed utterly. Liberal Anglicanism has become oxymoronic. For the first time this church has defined itself in opposition to liberalism, taking a decisively reactionary stance on a crucial moral issue.

...

The liberal Anglican priest (let's call him Father Giles) is bitterly critical of the church's collusion in homophobia. But he fully believes in the authority of the church, and his own authority ... Yet when the church claims authority to rule on sexual morality his tune changes. This aspect of its teaching is mistaken, he says, and amounts to a betrayal of the Gospel. The problem is that this tradition of sexual moralism is part of the traditional authority of the church, which Father Giles claims to affirm. In other words, he accepts the authority of the church when it suits him and rejects it when it does not.

==========================

Theo Hobson is no friend to liberals, and I'm sure someone will answer him in the next Face to faith & letters - but does he have a point?

A view from Sydney

Wikipedia image of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, now evidently out of date.

I encourage you to read two essays by George Clifford at Daily Episcopalian.

The first is a reflection on visiting St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney. He describes changes to the building and worship unlikely to be replicated in any other Anglican cathedral in the world. He drew three lessons:

• First, many Anglicans want substantive Christian education that the Church has too often failed to provide.
• Second, ... incarnational theology is a vital Anglican distinctive.
• Third, the scant notice the wider Anglican Communion has given to the radical departures from important Anglican distinctives in Sydney confirmed my longstanding suspicion: the current Anglican controversies about homosexuality have little to do with sex and much to do with other, more basic issues

The second essay describes a reflective meeting with Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion and Bishop Gene Robinson, on sabbatical from New Hampshire.

Canon Kearon in his opening remarks stated that the energy and money involved in the Windsor Report process detracts from the Church’s mission. He said that as he travelled around the Communion, he observes an increasing number of people who want to get on with the mission of the Church. Anger is building among Anglicans, he declared, over the continuing furor linked to the Windsor Report because that furor is not very Anglican, i.e., opposing the opinion of others rather than embracing diversity.

They touched on the very patchy nature of the listening process in relation to the experience of gay and lesbian people, and the lack of dialogue within the Anglican Communion on the central issues of division. In George Clifford's view

Three significant factors apparently coalesce around controversies over homosexuality to make it the prime proxy for the major but publicly unacknowledged issues facing the Anglican Communion. Those issues are African nationalism, anti-globalism, and anti-Americanism. Sex, non-serendipitously, uniquely adds emotional energy to the controversy, galvanizing forces on both sides.

When, he asks, will the Anglican Communion address these issues directly?

Well worth a read.

Ian McEwan talks to the New Republic

Ian McEwan

An extract from an interview with Ian McEwan author of, in my opinion, one of the most perfect novels of the second half of the twentieth century Atonement in New Republic. By Isaac Chotiner.

I just read a quote of yours, "Atheists have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious convictions," and I have noticed that recently you have been talking a little more about atheism. You also contributed an essay to a new book called The Portable Atheist. What are your thoughts on the "New Atheist" movement, which has gotten so much publicity and sold so many books in the last year or so. Do you think it differs from strains of atheism in the past?

I am a little baffled as to why it is called the "New Atheism." There is a very long tradition of free thinking, and the arguments made against religion tend to be the same but made over and over again. But I think what has happened is that there have been a number of good, articulate books--Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris, and so on. What they have discovered to their own great surprise is that in the United States, and right across the South too, there are an enormous number of people who also think this way. I don't think they have suddenly been persuaded by this rash of books--the feelings were there anyway--but they didn't have a voice, they didn't have a focus. When Hitchens took his book across the Bible Belt and debated with Baptist ministers in churches, there were huge audiences, most of whom, it seems, from when they spoke to him afterwards, were somewhat irritated that the place in the United States that they lived in was called the Bible Belt. I think there was something there that people had not taken into account. Quite heartening really, given that America is meant to be a secular republic with a strong tradition of upholding all freedom of thought.



Do you see religion as ineradicable, or do you think there is a chance to change people's minds on religion?

I think it is ineradicable, and I think it is a terrible idea to suppress it, too. We have tried that and it joins the list of political oppression. It seems to be fairly deeply stitched into human nature. It seems to be part of all cultures, so I don't expect it to vanish. And yet at the same time, if it is built into human nature, why are there so many people who don't believe in it? I think it is important that people with no religious beliefs speak up and speak for what they value. It is a bit of a problem, the title "Atheist"--no one really wants to be defined by what they do not believe in. We haven't yet settled on a name, but you wouldn't expect a Baptist minister to go around calling himself a Darwinist. But it is crucial that people who do not have a sky god and don't have a set of supernatural beliefs assert their belief in moral values and in love and in the transcendence that they might experience in landscape or art or music or sculpture or whatever. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, it makes them give more valence to life itself. The little spark that we do have becomes all the more valuable when you can't be trading off any moments for eternity.

David Walker on the Anglican Covenant

The Bishop of Dudley

The Church Times (Jan 4 2008) had an article by David Walker, Bishop of Dudley, on the proposed Anglican Covenant. It has now been made publicly available.

In the article Bishop Walker says American liberal views are largely against the Covenant which reflects their origin in dissenting tradition. Whereas, by contrast, English liberals generally hold a high view of the institution of the Church and of it officers and therefore, he implies, are generally in favour of the Covenant.

He says that this difference

This has left American liberals perplexed about how their English counterparts can believe that holding the Communion intact might outweigh their personal theological positions.

But this begs the questions, first, of whether the divide is really as great as he thinks, second, of whether the Covenant is likely to be effective at holding the Communion together and, third, whether the price of unity (which at one time seemed to include the expulsion of a Province) will be worth it.

Bishop Walker's view of English liberals does not include the MCU. We would rather not have a Covenant at all, seeing it (amongst other things) as a distortion of our Anglican heritage in the attempt to centralise power and replace consorority with direction from on high. If we have to have a Covenant let it be as loose a garment as possible - but this would be a poor second by a long way to not having one at all.

The Church has always been a coalition of different and divergent groups. Sub-traditions have always fractured and recombined in different organizations and ethos over time. So too, in relation to changes in church life and probably much else besides, theology has always reflected the proponents' prior commitment and hopes (it's a circular thing; there is no foundation from which policy may be deduced objectively).

These things aren't causes for concern but the normal ordering of the church. A Covenant will not affect them.

A Covenant may hold some of the Communion together institutionally. It will not change anyone's mind on the divisive issues at stake. And it may turn out, over time, to shift the culture and structures of the Church in directions that very few people will be happy with.

Paul Bagshaw

Blasphemy, Disestablishment and the number of the beast

There is a sense that this could only happen in London, via AFP

Gene Robinson's Lecture: Civil Discourse Part 2

Thanks to Episcopal Majority the next part of Gene Robinson's lecture is here.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The lecture is part of his book, In the Eye of the Storm, to be published in April and Episcopal Majority are taking advance orders.

Bishop Robinson will be at the MCU Conference in July, and no doubt copies of his book will be available there.

Insurer Judges a Church's Stance as Too Risky

From The Wall Street Journal 8/1/08

By M.P. McQueen

A small Protestant church in Adrian, Mich., has weathered controversies surrounding abolition, the Civil War, desegregation and Vietnam since it was established in 1836. Now, because its denomination supports gay rights, the church has been deemed too risky for property insurance.

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., turned down the West Adrian United Church of Christ, citing its national governing body's approval of gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.

"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions," Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual -- one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions -- wrote in a letter to the church last summer.

For years, same-sex marriage and gay rights have been among the nation's most divisive social issues in both religion and politics. Several Episcopal churches have voted to leave the global Anglican Communion because its American branch supports gay rights and ordained an openly gay bishop in 2003.

Churches and other policyholders have sometimes had their coverage revoked in the past in response to specific acts of violence or property damage related to social or political tensions. Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Many of the incidents occurred at predominantly black churches in the South.

But the West Adrian United Church of Christ may be among the few such institutions denied coverage because of fears about a destructive backlash against its stance, rather than in the aftermath of an incident. Its pastor, the Rev. John Kottke, says he knows of no acts of violence or threats against his church, its congregation of fewer than 200 members, or its parent organization.

Michigan voters banned gay marriage in 2004. And West Adrian isn't among the local branches of the United Church of Christ that has officially endorsed a resolution by its governing body affirming gay rights.

Mr. Kottke says he filled out a questionnaire from Brotherhood Mutual in hopes of getting a better insurance deal for the church, after one of its members referred him to an agent representing the company. The church, located in southeastern Michigan between Ann Arbor and Toledo, Ohio, has been insured for years without any problem by Safeco Corp., a publicly traded property and casualty insurer. It recently renewed its Safeco coverage.

"Every insurance company is in the business of assessing risk," says Brotherhood Mutual spokeswoman Mitzi L. Thomas, an assistant vice president. "Some insurance companies will take on a risk and other insurance companies may not want to take on that risk."

Brotherhood Mutual was founded in 1917 as a mutual-aid association by a sect of evangelical Mennonites, according to the company's Web site, and now serves 30,000 churches in 29 states and the District of Columbia. It is one of the largest insurers of religious institutions in the U.S.

Ms. Thomas didn't have any examples of violence attributable to a church's support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage. She added, however, that disputes over gay marriage and clergy have led to splits in other churches and congregations, resulting in costly litigation.

Ms. Thomas said she wasn't aware of other churches Brotherhood Mutual turned down because of positions on gay clergy or marriage, but the insurer has rejected churches because of other controversial positions. "Advocating violence, militia groups, we have turned down for that. Picketing at military funerals, making statements against religious leaders of other faiths...are some of the reasons," she said.

Insurance regulators for Michigan and Indiana said the company was within the law in such underwriting decisions. Insurers generally can set their own underwriting criteria and decide who or what not to insure, as long as they don't violate state or federal antidiscrimination laws or other specific prohibitions.

United Church of Christ, formed in 1957 by a merger of the New England Congregationalist churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, is known for its history of social activism. It ordained its first openly gay pastor in 1972 and affirmed support for same-sex marriage with a resolution at the General Synod, its governing body, in 2005. Of 5,700 United Church of Christ churches, 700 have publicly stated that they are "open and affirming" of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. West Adrian isn't one of them.

"As far as we know, this is the first time one of our churches has been denied an insurance quote because of their denomination's affirmation of gay and lesbian people," said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, communications director of the United Church of Christ in Cleveland.

He said acts against its churches are rare and mostly have involved minor vandalism. "It happens to all churches and public buildings for a variety of reasons," he said. "We don't have any information that would say our gay-affirming churches have more destruction to their property."

In addition to questions about endorsing or practicing ordination of homosexual clergy or same-sex marriage, the Brotherhood Mutual questionnaire asks whether a church advises members to forgo medical treatment in favor of faith healing, practices handling snakes or poisonous animals, endorses or is affiliated with organizations that endorse racial or ethnic discrimination or use of violence for political or social change.

Neither Church Mutual Insurance Co. of Merrill, Wis., nor GuideOne Insurance of West Des Moines, Iowa, two other major insurers of church property, said they had heard of similar underwriting policies. They said they don't ask about support for gay ordination or marriage on their applications for insurance.

The Wrong Type of Christian?

The Wrong Type of Christian? LGCM responds to Dr Elaine Storkey’s Industrial Tribunal against the Bishop of Liverpool.

Well known writer and broadcaster Dr Elaine Storkey appeared before a Reading Industrial Tribunal on Monday 7th January 2008 claiming she was dismissed from her job at an Oxford Theological College, Wycliffe Hall, because she was “the wrong type of Christian Evangelical”.

The ultra conservative and fundamentalist evangelical principal of Wycliffe Hall, the Revd Richard Turnbull’s decision to sack Dr Storkey, a BBC R4 Thought for the Day contributor, along with two other moderate Evangelicals, has caused a major controversy within the Church of England. Many have been calling for his removal since the controversy erupted last year.

The Reading Industrial Tribunal heard an admission from legal Counsel for the College that Turnbull had acted unlawfully in sacking Storkey and revealed that compensation of some £20,000 had already been paid to her, with similar sums expected to be paid to two others. With increased legal costs and possible damages from this case calls for Dr Turnbull’s resignation are expected to be renewed with greater vigour.

The Revd Richard Kirker, Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement made the following comments:

“We first became aware of the crisis at Wycliffe Hall when there were accusations from former staff members and students of homophobic bullying at the college following reports that it had been “captured” by ultra conservative Evangelicals led by Turnbull. The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, another regular Thought for the Day contributor, as chair of the college’s Council has supported Turnbull’s unlawful actions and it is good to see him personally held to account in this legal action.

“Bishop Jones’ support for the behaviour and theological position declared by Turnbull calls his judgment into serious question at many levels. The deepening scandal surrounding Wycliffe is entirely the responsibility of Bishop Jones – he must consider his position both as chair of the council and as a bishop of the Church.

It is interesting, if not a little paradoxical, to see Dr Storkey pursuing this case on the grounds of religious discrimination. We hope it is a sign of greater flexibility at, for instance, development agency Tearfund where she is UK President. Tearfund makes it clear that only committed Evangelical Christians may apply for any job.

We are told that all applicants must subscribe to a rather detailed "statement of faith" a statement which we imagine Dr Turnbull would find insufficient.

We suspect that Tearfund’s complex and from our point of view unacceptable employment policy, like that of many homophobic "Christian" organisations, has been recently redrafted to find a dubious way around recent legislation making it illegal to discriminate against lesbian and gay people including self-affirming lesbian and gay Christians. In this context it is a policy that may well turn around and bite Dr Storkey herself. To be honest – as much as we sympathise with the fact she was undoubtedly bullied and dismissed unnecessarily by some very nasty people - we hope it does!”

“Does Tearfund welcome applicants who are openly lesbian or gay Christians as much as she expects Wycliffe Hall to accept her on her own terms? Has she used her position as President of this Christian charity to make its employment policy any less unacceptable than Wycliffe Hall’s? We fear not.”

Ends 9th January 2008

For further information contact Rev Martin Reynolds on 01633 215841 or email here.

Gene Robinson's Lecture: Civil Discourse Part 1

Episcopal Majority has published the first part of Gene Robinson's Lecture Civil Discourse given at NOVA Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The lecture is part of his book, In the Eye of the Storm, to be published in April and Episcopal Majority are taking advance orders.

Bishop Robinson will be at the MCU Conference in July, and no doubt copies of his book will be available there.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The cash cost of division

Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia

From the Washington Post

The Diocese of Virginia, embroiled in the largest property dispute in the history of the Episcopal Church, is taking out a $2 million line of credit to finance lawsuits against 11 churches that left the denomination a year ago.

Bishop of Rochester undermines the work of the Church of England

InclusiveChurch Press Release issued today:

The announcement of the GAFCON conference shows how little concern the neo-conservative lobby has for the rest of the church. Michael Poon’s questions from Singapore were rejected in no uncertain terms. The failure to listen to the concerns of the Bishop of Jerusalem on the proposed conference was made abundantly clear.

Choosing Jerusalem for the meeting simply demonstrates that the neo-conservatives have little interest in the well-being of the Anglican Communion or of the Israel/Palestine situation – the last thing Jerusalem needs is another divisive conference.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s condemnation in the Sunday Telegraph of multiculturalism and remarks about ‘no-go’ areas are unhelpful, and likely to worsen rather than reduce community tensions. The ill-considered nature of his remarks is mirrored in his support for GAFCON and the Diocese of San Joaquin; in both cases he has taken up a position which undermines the work of the Church of England as it seeks to reflect God’s generous love for those of all faiths and none.

The role of a Bishop is to seek to serve and lead the Church and community constructively and supportively. It is not clear to us how the Bishop of Rochester can reconcile his current activities with his place in the House of Bishops.

His claim that ‘If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one’ seems to belittle the faithful witness of Anglicans and other Christians who live and worship in urban areas across Britain, care for the needy, welcome their neighbours of other faiths and challenge the despair, poverty and racial injustice which divide communities. He is however right to point out that the Bible teaches ‘that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image’.

Inclusive Church looks forward to 2008. The preparations for the Lambeth Conference are going well. Those of us who support a church which is truly inclusive and truly welcoming are working closely together through the St Anne’s Network in the UK and our partner organisations across the world, so that the Listening Process called for in the Windsor Report can move forward and we can begin to celebrate the ministry of all people in the Church.

We look forward to a strong and engaged presence by Bishops across the spectrum of the Communion at the Lambeth Conference. We hope that those Bishops in the UK who are supporting the secessionist Dioceses in the USA will recognise the inconsistency of their positions and cease; and we look forward to celebrating our search for a deeper understanding of the love of God alongside Muslims, Jews and those of other faiths around the world in the coming year.

Savitri Hensman and Giles Goddard, for InclusiveChurch

GAFCON into division

There has been a lot of chatter in the Anglican blogosphere, both liberal and conservative, about the GAFCON conference announced just before Christmas. Thinking Anglicans has tracked much of it here, here, here, here, here, here, after its original report here.

Some conservatives were annoyed that they hadn't been consulted and that the proposal seemed to cut across other plans. The Bishop of Jerusalem says he was not consulted and doesn't want the conference there.

Of course liberals are very poor at getting their act together, speaking with one voice, or co-ordinating their actions. But a central part of the liberal approach is an acceptance, even a celebration, of difference within the one community: we are more fully the body of Christ because we do not see eye to eye.

Each little liberal group in our own little corner recognises that we are no more than a splinter of the whole. In large part we respect and presume the faith and good standing of those with whom we disagree. We carry on our disagreements and arguments and attempts to persuade on the understanding that the continued discussion is itself constitutive of a better and still insufficient whole. In that sense liberals take the fallen nature of humanity much more seriously than many conservatives.

Conservatives are themselves divided, most visibly on the status of women in the church, and on many other things besides. But orthodoxy (at least in the way it has come to be used to designate 'the orthodox') presumes a monolithic coherence. In this mode there can't be multiple orthodoxies each slightly different from one another. 'Orthodox' has been used as an absolute term when in practice it is a relative term: only by comparison with others is it possible to say who is orthodox, and more orthodox.

In fact the only thing that binds conservative Anglicans together is their enmity towards liberals. Untie them from their enemies and conservatives will rapidly divide from one another in direct proportion to their desire to be pure in their orthodoxy.

The Welsh, I heard, built two chapels in every village so that they could all have a chapel they didn't go to.

Paul Bagshaw

Dither on, Williams

The Archbishop of Canterbury was never one for diktats. Now his inaction has let those who would split the church get into a fine mess

Andrew Brown (speaker at the forthcoming MCU Conference) has his say on The Guardian Blog pages

Lambeth Conference 2008

More of the programme of the (real) Lambeth Conference has been published here

The aims of the Conference are that all bishops attending will:

• be restored and refreshed spiritually
• gain deeper knowledge of each other
• be more aware of the spiritual and physical resources that God has given them to meet missionary challenges in different parts of the world
• have greater understanding and appreciation of life together in the Anglican Communion
• address conflict
• discover a new level of trust in common service to God
• gain greater understanding of the contribution Anglicanism can make to the worldwide church and the world

These will be reached through spending time together in spiritual reflection, learning, sharing experiences and discerning their particular role in God’s mission for the world.

The following subjects will be among those that the expanded group and self-selecting afternoon sessions during the conference:

• Biblical interpretation / Hermeneutics
• Ecumenical Management
• Anglican identity, the role of bishops
• Issues of Covenant
• Listening Process (within the Communion)
• Engagement with other faiths
• Evangelism and Mission
• Gender and Sexuality
• Relationships, Social and family relationships
• HIV/Aids
• Millennium Development Goals

It would seem that the organisers are looking to have many of the debates behind closed doors. The Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch, said it would be “odd”, “irresponsible” and sweeping the issue “under the carpet” if there were no plans for a major public debate on the issue of gay clergy. Report