Only Connect

Covenant: briefing paper for General Synod February 2009

2009-02-12T09:26:00.000+01:00

I've put on the MCU website a briefing paper on the Covenant for today's General Synod debate.

It assumes readers have GS 1716, the official briefing paper, available here via Thainking Anglicans.

.

Bored of liberal Christianity

2008-12-20T14:02:00.002+01:00

There's a interesting debate entitled Bored of liberal Christianity on the Ship of Fools website. MCU gets a passing reference.

Thanks to Dave Marshall, MCU membership administrator and a shipmate on the Ship of Fools.

Assisted dying

2008-12-15T19:55:00.005+01:00

Craig Ewert

The death of Craig Ewert broadcast on Sky TV brought the issue of assisted dying to the top of the media agenda, briefly.

Naturally the media turn to religious leaders for comment on moral social questions and, equally naturally, most comment is socially conservative. MCU takes a careful view but has come down on the side of decriminalising assisted dying with strong safeguards.

From Ekklesia

The Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU), a historic society to promote open theological debate within the Church of England, was one of the religious bodies to come out broadly in favour of Lord Joffe's previous Bill.

In a detailed submission on MCU's behalf to the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in 2006, Professor Paul Badham, who holds the Chair for Theology and Religious Studies in the University of Wales, argued for a 'good death' as a legitimate Christian option and understanding.

He wrote: "It is interesting that, though historically Jesus died a cruel death at the hands of his enemies, the fourth Gospel presents it as his own choice: 'No one takes it from me. I lay it down of my own accord.' From a Christian perspective death is not viewed as a disaster, but as gateway to fuller life. In the early Church this was very firmly believed."

Dr Badham went on to argue that "before St. Augustine changed Christian attitudes to this question, many of the early Christians continued to hold the stoic understanding of suicide as 'a noble deat'. The beliefs of the early Christians provide an interesting counter balance to those of their successors today who give priority to the prolongation of life at all costs."

However MCU said at the time that legislation on the matter needed to be very carefully controlled and monitored, arguing against a time limit on any declaration of intent which ìmay put pressure on a patient to ask for implementation of assisted suicide before that date.

New MCU Administrator

2008-12-08T20:41:00.001+01:00

We are pleased to announce that Christine Alker has been appointed the post of Administrator She started work on 1st December.

Christine is administror of the influential conferences of the Centre for Radical Christianity in Sheffield.

We look forward to benefiting from her skills and experience. She joins us at a time when we are expanding our activities, and we are delighted to welcome her into our team.

As Administrator Christine is now the first point of contact for enquirers. The email address office@modchurchunion.org and the telephone number 0845 345 1909 are now both directed to her.

Her postal address will bethe new MCU Office, but at the time of writing she is about to move house and we do not know what this new address will be.

Jonathan Clatworthy remains General Secretary. He still lives at 9 Westward View, Liverpool L17 7EE, so post for the MCU can still be sent to this address. However my email and landline number have changed. I can be emailed on jonathan@clatworthy.org. The landline is 0151 727 6291, aka 0845 345 1908.

Talking across the boundaries

2008-11-20T20:38:00.003+01:00

Extract from:
A foot in many camps - a reply to Stephen Kuhrt
by Chris Sugden in the Church of England Newspaper November 21 2008
Anglican Mainstream

Sugden discusses the flavours of Anglican Evangelicals in the light of the falling out at the recent NEAC gathering (Thinking Anglicans and here).

The article includes:

As a further illustration of this problem of identity, consider the
public meeting on July 12 in the Rochester Diocese arranged by Affirming
Catholicism, in which Fulcrum took part. The aim of the meeting was
"Exploring what Diocesan and National Groups have to offer to the life and work
of the Church of England at this present critical time". Questions to be
considered were: Why so many groups that encourage us to belong? What do they
stand for? Where is the unity . . . and the diversity? Half hour
presentations were made by: Fulcrum (Graham Kings); Inclusive Church
(Erica Wooff); Modern Churchpeople’s Union (Richard Hall); Changing Attitude
(Sue Brewer); Affirming Catholicism; WATCH - Women And The Church (Charles
Read); Society of Catholic Priests (Michael Skinner). What do
these groups have in common and what differentiates them?
The meeting was reported in the Rochester Diocesan Link (October 2008) thus: "The debate ranged across subjects such as the ability to talk to one another across difference and to explore what binds us even when we are sharply divided. This includes debates about Covenant and questions around sexuality, ascertaining the right balance and looking at points of controversy, and having regard to the Gospel, the Bible, the Church and the Communion; it also means affirming the Church’s
mission, in obedience to Holy Scripture, to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ
afresh in every generation. Most groups did not want to advocate a slavish
reading of Scripture; some groups were clearly campaigning groups, others saw
themselves as support organisations, yet others as doing the research which
campaigning groups could use – but why not look them up on their varying
websites?" ENDS
I could find no report of the Conference on the Fulcrum
website so do not know if Fulcrum agreed with any or none of these statements,
nor whether all supporters of Fulcrum would share the same view of them. So
there may be varieties of the Open Evangelical stream: some having common ground with the Modern Churchman’s Union which that same month had hosted Gene Robinson as a speaker. And some who do not.

Pluralist on MCU

2008-11-15T09:54:00.004+01:00

Pluralist, in his thoughtful and informed way, has commented on the latest MCU press release (below).

In terms of the shifting balance of church party politics he has a point: it's very hard to judge how things will go. If GAFCON or women bishops result in the conservatives leaving the CofE (Anglo-Catholics or Evangelicals) the consequences will take a generation to become visible. For liberals there are two separable questions. The more important is, what will be the place of the Broad Church inheritance? And also, what will the future be for the MCU?

My guess is that the Broad Church has a healthy future. That is, to be exact, there will continue to be those who value the breadth and inclusivity of the Church of England. They may very well look different to their predecessors ('broad' is a relative term and as dependent on those it opposes as on its own self-definition) but they will claim Broad Church inheritance in any case: history is written backwards.

I'm not sure about 'suffering' from the dual role of the Broad Church. MCU has a valuable role as a home, permanent or respite, for those who find themselves located with (for the most part) evangelical congreagations but who are travelling away into a more liberal theological position. This is important but secondary, a consequence of its primary focus on promoting theological reflection and ecclesial action from liberal tenets.

But I agree whole heartedly about the difficulty of leading the organization - and not just for its President, Bishop Saxbee. Turbulent times cannot be kept outside. Each of the present associations of clergy will either have to redefine themselves and their relations to external change or they will shrivel like grapes to raisins. I also guess that those which survive will do so by sustaining a relatively high degree of flexibility, internal fluidity and thus risk-taking (in the small, risk averse world of ecclesiastical politics).

We shall see. But the MCU has more life in it yet.

Paul Bagshaw

The release was also picked up at Episcopal Café.

defend diversity, oppose covenant

2008-11-13T19:50:00.000+01:00

ENGLAND: Liberal Anglicans defend diversity, oppose covenant

By Mary Taylor, November 12, 2008

[Episcopal News Service] The council of the Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU) met November 6 in London's Docklands to develop a strategy for the defense of liberal theology.

Firmly opposed to the proposed Anglican covenant, the group plans to extend its network beyond England, improving links with the Episcopal Church, building branches in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, recruiting a range of ages and denominations, and increasing support among bishops and academic theologians.

The council members, many of them Church of England clergy, agreed that the organization will be re-branded, re-named, and re-constituted to reflect more fully its openness and diversity. Furthermore, the group decided that an administrator should be appointed and a system of working groups set up.

The Rev. John Plant, a parish priest in Warwickshire who chaired the MCU meeting, was joined by most of the council's 32 members, including the Rev. Jonathan Clatworthy, a Liverpool-based priest and MCU general secretary, and Professor Paul Badham, professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Wales and MCU vice president.

Founded in 1898, the organization was originally named The Churchmen's Union for the Advancement of Liberal Thought. This soon became The Churchmen's Union, then The Modern Churchmen's Union. The change to 'Churchpeople's' was an inevitable, though arguably belated, innovation in the 1980s.

The original aims and objectives -- "to unite [those] who consider that dogma is capable of reinterpretation and restatement in accordance with the clearer perception of truth attained by discovery and research" -- are consistent with MCU's view 110 years on. Asked after the November 6 meeting how he would like to see MCU develop, Clatworthy said, "It is important to offer an account of Christianity which is consistent with modern scientific understandings of the world, open to new insights and constructive in its social and moral judgments."

In July, MCU members welcomed Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a guest speaker at their conference, "Saving the Soul of Anglicanism."

Among MCU's many supporters is the Most Rev. Barry Morgan, Archbishop of the Church in Wales, who chaired the July conference in Hoddesdon, England, and is one of the organization's vice presidents. Speakers included the Rev. Canon Professor Marilyn McCord Adams, of Oxford University; the Rev. Canon Dr. Charlotte Methuen, of Oxford University; Bishop Michael Jackson of Clogher, Church of Ireland; Bishop Frank Griswold, 25th presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church; and Bishop Trevor Mwamba of Botswana.

Griswold told the July gathering that the search for truth is a communal one, and that "the Holy Spirit can do different things in different places."

Mwamba spoke of "delusions of grandeur" among some of the African primates and noted that many church members throughout the continent had not been consulted about issues of human sexuality, and were "frankly not bothered with the debate."

"Some of our primates act like ecclesiastical Mugabes," he said, making reference to Zimbabwe's tyrannical president who has led his country into a humanitarian crisis and financial collapse.

Speaking in opposition of the Anglican covenant, proposed as a way to maintain unity amid difference throughout the communion, Adams told the July gathering, "There is no single version of humanity within the church."

Badham, in his MCU booklet Liberal Anglicanism, argues that the church seems willing to "abandon two centuries of liberal scholarship and -- in the case of homosexuality -- to return to an ethic based on biblical taboo."

Further information about MCU is available here.

-- Mary Taylor is a freelance journalist based in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Science and Religion

2008-09-12T09:27:00.003+02:00

From Pluralist's Anglican Collider

Some particles are fired anti-clockwise, representing a backward motion. These include the Fulcrum particle, the GAFCON particle, the Reform particle and the Anglican Mainstream particle. Although they have different characteristics, they tend to stick together in part or whole, although the Fulcrum particle is a little more ambiguous and rather small if apparently influential. Some particles are more destructive than others. Other particles are fired clockwise, and these include the Inclusive Church particle, Affirming Catholicism particle and the Modern Churchpeople's Union particle. Again these tend to come together, so have to be fired separately at the other lot. Some of these have characteristics of weak energy, and need more effort to have any impact. In addition there are a number of free radicals, such as the Sea of Faith particle, and there are even some that seem increasingly detached and spiralling out of control, such as the Forward in Faith particle that finds some peculiar particles for interaction, such as the GAFCON particle despite obvious incompatibilities.

MCU Conference photos

2008-08-18T16:20:00.012+02:00

Some photos from the MCU Conference in July:
Trevor Mwamba
& Barry Morgan
the lecture hall worship
in the garden
the lounge

Holding together but going nowhere

2008-08-18T13:58:00.005+02:00

Jean Mayland

Jean is pictured here at the MCU stall at the Lambeth Conference

This is how I would describe the state of the Anglican Communion in the light of the summary of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s final address and the extracts from the final reflections given in the Church Times of 8 August. The Church Times also gave some space to the blogs of some bishops and the spoken views of others. On the whole they reported favourably on the Conference although some expressed the view that they did not really know exactly what had been decided.

How did it all feel from the point of view of MCU? It was MCU’s first experience of being at Lambeth with a stall and a fringe event. For me personally this was the third Lambeth conference, which I had attended in one capacity or another. The greatest difference was the lack of openness and the security. The press were not allowed to go to worship or plenaries, which is most unusual at international gatherings. We had to go to endless trouble to obtain passes. These were deemed essential for safety but when we arrived and not all were ready we were told that we did not really need them and they were too expensive to do more as they cost £4 each! I stood my ground and insisted we had them. People actually needed them if they wished to eat in the one restaurant where we were allowed to go. I am convinced that the passes had nothing at all to do with Islamic terrorists but were aimed at keeping gay people, women and yes- liberal theologians away from bishops!

There were lively fringe events and presentations but sadly few bishops came. Last time I remember fringe events of all kinds being full. We had been warned by security that we could not go to each others events and had even obliged to supply lists of approved helpers with the official passes. In the event no one checked up on us and we all went to each other’s events and enjoyed them and learnt a lot. It is a great pity the bishops did not do the same. We did rather better at the MCU event than did many others. We had over 60 people present and quite a number of bishops. We were well supported by Wales and Scotland. John Saxbee, our President made a good speech and there was some interesting conversation.

In the ‘Church Times’ the Bishop of Winchester complained about ‘well funded lobby groups.’ I had part in 3 of the stalls within the Inclusive Church grouping- WATCH, Changing Attitude and Modern Churchperson's Union. For 6-7 hours day for weeks before the Conference I sat at my computer contacting volunteers, working out rotas, planning fringe events and dealing with security issues. I am 72. I did so because I care about those on edge and open Anglican theology.

The groups had their centre not in luxury but in a church hall rented for the purpose where media work was carried out, meetings held and evening meals cooked by volunteers. As these were eaten at 6.30 I could never participate as the stalls did not close until 7pm and then we had to cash up. I then drove to Canterbury's other university and put my Sainsbury's ready meal in the oven- something I never do at home! I shared the kitchen with Chinese language students, music students and a Sudanese Moslem woman who had come to make sure her son worked for his finals! Other volunteers shared student houses, made their own sandwiches and avoided the expensive food on campus. People gave up holidays and paid their own expenses. One set of volunteers worked late into the night to prepare the give away paper 'Lambeth Witness' and another and another set got up early to try to distribute it in the face of every possible obstacle put in our path. Jonathan Clatworthy had some excellent articles and reflections in a number of editions.

The ‘market place’ was housed partly in a sports hall and partly in a kind of egg box like tent attached to it. We were in that bit which was very humid and hot .As the hot humid atmosphere in the market place rose so the camaraderie increased and gay people chatted with hard line groups who wanted to 'heal' them. The most popular stall in the whole place was that of 'The Episcopal Church' (TEC) who gave away hundreds of free fans!

Sometimes the ‘market place’ was quiet and we could walk around and visit other stalls and go into the posher cool bit to refresh ourselves. Then bishops and spouses would swarm in and we would try to accost them and speak with them. Our ploy was to invite them to our reception and then try to engage them in conversation. With the invitation we gave them one of our fliers. We soon found that the one headed liberal theology seemed to terrify many of them and so we changed and gave away the one about interpreting the Bible today! Jonathan also went ‘visiting’ some of the other stallholders and had useful conversations with them. Towards the end of the first week we were glad to welcome representatives of the Student Christian Movement to help on our stall and sell some of their literature and badges. They certainly brought down our average age and gave us renewed hope for the future of liberal theology. Another welcome assistant was a schoolboy from Canterbury who spent hours helping on our stall and was a tower of strength. Near the end of the fortnight, when our energy was flagging, Richard Truss et al turned up with new ideas for the stall and Elizabeth and Richard Darlington came with new energy and a new technique once the ‘Reception’ was over.

We soon stopped trying to sell our booklets and gave them away. We had pictures of our recent conference, which Joan Dorrell brought and ‘print offs’ from some of the talks, which John Plant had produced. These proved very popular. Clare Nicholson and Stephen Cox were our stalwarts at photocopying them. Jonathan did not sell as many of his books as he hoped but in the face of all the competition he did really well. The ‘Times’ reported that only one of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s books sold while Gene Robinson sold 50. Jonathan sold 14 and gave 2 away- one to the press and one to a person who had been so helpful with accommodation.

From our viewpoint the bishops talked in secret little groups in their ‘big top’ surrounded by a ring of police and only emerged once to go to London to tell society how wicked it was not to do more about the debt. Many of us had worked in or visited Africa and experienced the poverty. We do all we can to press for justice and support the aid agencies but we also know about violence against women in Africa and the persecution of gay people. They are the real victims and scapegoats in this whole process.

Now we can read the results of Lambeth – in my case with great depression. We are told the Communion held together (for the moment at least) but it is not going anywhere. There are no plans or processes to facilitate moving forward together but in different ways according to our culture and mission. There is the threat of a covenant, which is a thoroughly un-Anglican concept, and a promise of a moratorium on gay blessings and consecrations but no mention of a time limit. We are threatened with a Communion based on fundamentalist interpretations of scripture to please the Africans and a hierarchical system of control to please the Roman Catholics. We want neither for neither are Anglican. It seems to me that a vital role for the MCU is to continue to keep an eye on the Covenant process and maintain steady flow of good theologically based critical comment.

Many people in our parishes are blissfully ignorant of all this and just go on in their own sweet way. Others are deeply disturbed. Just to mention two e-mails I have received since I came home. The first was from someone with whom I used to work at CTBI -'I thought of you a lot during Lambeth. There was one Sunday morning that I listened to Sunday programme, then just couldn’t go to the C of E church, bishop and all for confirmation. I feel more and more at home with the Quakers, but if I become a Quaker, I really don’t want it to be because I’m taking refuge from the Anglicans! '

Another person wrote, 'As a gay and partnered Anglican looking to a civil partnership and blessing next year and as a man wanting to exercise gifts and training in LLM, I am nearly exploding with frustration as nothing seems to have moved forward, in fact I feel that things are more entrenched if anything... I know you have been there and still journeying with women's ministry issues, how do you do it and still remain faithful to a church, which does not seem to want to know?

The answer lies in developing a spirituality for a long haul and getting practised at lifting oneself up from blow after blow.

At the beginning of the Conference, Gene Robinson and some other American Bishops, who had panted up the hill carrying their robes after a two hour marathon in the Cathedral, joined us in a Eucharist in field outside the city walls by a simple wooden cross. In a very real way Christ was there. We trust that in the struggles ahead God will be with us and all who suffer on the fringes.

After the Lambeth Conference - back to business for the Anglican Central African Provincial Bishops

2008-08-08T18:19:00.003+02:00

from Anglican Information

After the Lambeth Conference - back to business for the Anglican Central African Provincial Bishops

ANGLICAN INFORMATION observes that the Central African Bishops* did not boycott the Lambeth Conference as they might have being technically part of the Global South alliance that has taken a hard line on the current crises in the Anglican Communion. They chose sensibly to attend Lambeth in a spirit of dialogue and concern for the unity of the Communion and in support of Archbishop Rowan Williams whose heroic efforts to avert schism seem to be paying dividends.

The Bishops from Central Africa did not, of course, include the excommunicated Nolbert Kungonga of Harare, Zimbabwe who is now claiming support from the GAFCON group most of whom stayed away from Lambeth.

Bishop Trevor Mwamaba of Botswana, formerly Dean of the Province, until arbitrarily sacked by former Archbishop Bernard Malango, has had a good Lambeth.

He began in the pre–Lambeth week by delivering a keynote lecture to the annual Conference of the Modern Churchpeople’s Union in Hertfordshire, U.K. Chaired by the Archbishop of Wales this annual major academic gathering also featured several other distinguished speakers, including the former Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church.

Mwamba’s lecture entitled ‘A Holy Mess and the Grace of Ambiguity’ is available online on the MCU website at www.modchurchunion.org. In a wide ranging erudite address he covered a sweep of Church history speaking of schisms and difficulties through the ages and tellingly quoting the third century Church Father and African bishop of Carthage, St Cyprian: ‘It but remains that each of us should in regard to this same matter, bring forward his opinion, judging no one, nor depriving anyone of the right of communion if he should think differently’.

Mwamba is an absolutely orthodox bishop but he is unwilling to allow that Anglicans should be divided amongst themselves. Nor is he willing that the current controversies about sexuality should cause Africans to divert their attention from the real issues of the day such as HIV/Aids, poverty, corruption and hunger.

Mwamba is quoted favourably by a number of international news agencies he said of the Lambeth Conference: ‘The Conference has been excellent I would even say it has been divinely inspired. There was a growing sense of oneness, a sense that we all have a lot in common. We have been transformed by the relationships we have formed’.

Mwamba a favourite candidate: The press are describing Trevor Mwamba as a favourite for the position of next Archbishop of Central Africa, a position which remains vacant until all the currently empty sees are filled.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports that Bishop Mwamba is highly respected by priests and people in the Province, not least in Malawi. Whilst he was Dean, he was on the point of achieving resolution of the longstanding impasse over the Diocese of Lake Malawi case by instigating an independent Provincial Court to investigate the unfortunate Court of Confirmation that failed to endorse the election of the new bishop, on the grounds of being a former member of the Modern Churchpeople’s Union. The then Archbishop Bernard Malango squashed this initiative – hence the continuing lack of resolution.

Mwamba is a relatively young man and future consideration of an Archbishop of Canterbury chosen from the wider Anglican Communion, as is likely within the next ten years, means that he must also be an emerging long-term candidate for the top position in the Communion. He is a bishop who is able to bridge the gap between the West and Africa and indispensable requirement in today’s Anglican Church.

Meanwhile back in Zimbabwe or more precisely South Africa: The International Herald Tribune reports the unexpected but welcome news that power sharing talks in Johannesburg between Zimbabwe’s rival parties which last week broke down, seem now to have picked up again. Both sides also seem willing to extend any deadline for agreement.

With the summit of the Southern African Development Community due to start in South Africa on 16th August, the Botswana government has said it will not recognize Robert Mugabe as head of state if he attends.

Nolbert Kunonga of Harare: We can only hope and pray that a resolution to Zimbabwe does emerge. It is essential for the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe, not least because as today’s Zimbabwe Daily News reports with a headline “Zanu –PF Bishop Kunonga at it again” the disruption of a funeral at St Mary’s Churchyard, Chitungwiza, 20 kms north east of Harare. Kunonga apparently directed the violent disruption by mobile ‘phone as group of his supporters vowed that the mourners (loyal to Bishop Sebastian Bakare) would never be able to conduct the funeral.

Intriguingly, the article claims that the Kunonga faction are now affiliated to the Anglican Province of Kenya – ANGLICAN-INFORMATION as yet have been unable to gain confirmation of this extraordinary claim.

Letter to the Guardian

2008-08-06T21:31:00.000+02:00

To The Editor, The Guardian,

Dear Sir,

It is hard to see the justification for the Archbishop of Canterbury's allegation that liberals are to blame for the current rift in the Anglican Communion (The Guardian, 4th August).

Liberals have come to their current conclusions because they have heeded the calls of previous Lambeth Conference resolutions. The crisis is because many traditionalists have refused to do this.

Rather than listen to gay people (Resolutions 1978, 1988 and 1998), the Church has silenced them. The Resolutions in 1978 and 1988 called for deep and dispassionate study 'which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research', yet the Anglican Communion office in London only contacted the Royal College of Psychiatrists for information last year when we personally urged them to do so. Is it any wonder then that some bishops in the Anglican Communion still deny the existence of gay people in their countries?

Liberals study the Scriptures but also recognise that the Scriptures have been used to oppress as well as liberate human beings in the past. And whatever happened to the call to Anglican Provinces to assess human rights in relation to homosexual people? - Gloucester Cathedral's memorial to the victims of the Nazi holocaust includes a remembrance of homosexual people alongside others who were targeted, but the targeting of gay victims continues and the Anglican Communion is silent, and some bishops even support such laws in their countries.

The admission of Gentiles to the church before official permission was granted was a hotly debated dispute in the early Church, but thank God the Archbishop did not chair the meeting in Jerusalem that discussed it - we might not have a Church at all today!

Yours faithfully,

Rev Gillian Cooke and Dr Alan Sheard

Religion and the Environment

2008-08-06T21:30:00.002+02:00

Nick Reeves in today’s Guardian picks up on a statement by Riazat Butt that "There is hardly a religious leader in the world now who is not preoccupied by the problems of pollution and climate change" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/activists.climatechange).

He adds: ‘What the faith groups can offer is a framework - ethical, spiritual, imaginative and intellectual - for the pursuit of all the good that relates to human destiny’.

On the other hand, ‘as Archbishop Bartholomew warns, cohorts of secularists continue to pursue greedy and harmful lifestyles believing that techno-fix solutions alone will be our salvation. The truth is that blind faith in the ability of technology to sustain a growing global population - hard-wired to materialism - that has already breached environmental limits is bonkers’. (Archbishop Bartholomew is the Orthodox Archbishop of Constantinople: really Orthodox, that is, not a fringe sectarian Calvinist trying to present his views as characteristically Anglican.)

Spot on – but perhaps the underlying reason is worth spelling out more clearly. When we look at the philosophies behind the contrasting attitudes we can see why it works out like that. The two dominant options (there are others) are: either the world was created by a benevolent intending mind with a purpose, or it has come into existence simply as a result of atoms obeying impersonal laws of nature, without any intention behind it.

If you believe the first, it makes sense to expect that we can all live together in peace without wrecking the planet. It’s up to us to work out how, and adapt our behaviour accordingly. Likely policies are to produce and consume less, and to be much more careful about the side-effects of new technologies.

On the other hand if you believe the second, there is no purpose or design in the way the world works, and if there are to be any purposes or designs at all they will be the ones humans create. For humanity’s leaders to artificially change the climate, or ecosystems, or the food chain, is not to destroy a designed system but to create a design for the first time. Even if we all decide to live a stone age life without harming the environment, perhaps we’re about to be wiped out for some other reason anyway. Who knows? So if we want to ensure our continuing survival, all we have is human science and technology.

Here in our environmental crises lies a real practical difference between belief and unbelief, and it seems to me that the cult of technology accentuated by unbelief is doing more harm than good.
Jonathan Clatworthy

Who’s obsessed with homosexuality?

2008-08-04T18:43:00.002+02:00

One of the reports on the Lambeth Conference was The Times’ ‘Lambeth voices: a panel of Anglican bishops share their views with Faith Online’. Here’s a quote from 30th July: I find that many of our North American friends blame us and criticise us for bringing in the issues of sexuality and homosexuality but in fact they are the ones who are bringing these issues in. Here at Lambeth, you come across many advertisements for events organised by gay and Lesbian activists which are sponsored by the North American Church. If you visit the marketplace at the conference, you will notice that almost half the events promoted on the noticeboard promote homosexuality and are sponsored by the North Americans. And in the end, we, the people who remain loyal to the original teaching of the Anglican Communion, which we received from the Apostles, are blamed. They say that we talk a lot about sexuality and that we need to talk more about poverty, about AIDS, and injustice. They are the ones who are bringing sexuality into this conference. It’s not us. We want to talk about the heart of the issues which divide us, not only sexuality. That is just a symptom of a deeper problem.
Interesting how things are changing. Throughout the twentieth century there was a tendency for evangelical opinion in the English-speaking world to coalesce around one or two ethical issues, a sharp contrast with liberals who vary much more widely in their interests. Without doubt the current focus on homosexuality was an evangelical initiative: liberals and catholics have never been so bothered about it. Now however the tune seems to be changing. At the end of the GAFCON conference Peter Jensen declared that their agenda was not homosexuality but what he called ‘loyalty to Scripture’; and it now appears that anti-gay church leaders are increasingly claiming that it’s liberals who are obsessed with it.
It is certainly true that the Lambeth Conference Marketplace was better represented by pro-gay than anti-gay organizations. I was greatly surprised as it’s usually the other way round. I put it down to the fact that at the time when the bookings had to be made it looked as if liberals would have to lobby hard to retain their place within Anglicanism and conservatives had less to worry about. And of course you lobby when you want change but when you don’t want change you accuse your opponents of being obsessed.
I suspect that there is more to it. The focus on homosexuality suited the hardliners for a while, as it provided the best chance of uniting evangelical opinion around a single campaign. It was never going to work for ever. Increasing numbers of evangelicals are getting bored with the issue, rightly wanting to engage with other matters like world poverty and global warming. Worse still, as the affluent West becomes more tolerant of homosexuality increasing numbers of evangelicals are meeting open gays and discovering that they are not the devil incarnate.
My hope is that the campaign against homosexuality will soon decline. My fear is that it will be replaced by some other campaign, equally designed to foster a sectarian, black-and-white picture of goodies and baddies, equally willing to sacrifice some unfortunate minority in the interests of providing those who need it with a sense of belonging to a select Gnostic elite of true believers.
Jonathan Clatworthy

Does gay tolerance lose members?

2008-08-04T18:42:00.002+02:00

‘The consecration of a gay Anglican bishop has led to sexual license, a new form of colonisation and ridicule for the church, it was claimed yesterday by bishops attending the Lambeth conference in Canterbury... “In some places [eg parts of Africa] the church is ridiculed as the gay church so membership is lost”’ (The Guardian 2 August).
Interesting argument. While GAFCON fulminates against the British and Americans for allowing their moral stances to be influenced by contemporary society instead of condemning homosexuality, these other bishops are positively demanding the right to be influenced by their societies instead of permitting homosexuality.
Well: should we allow ourselves to be influenced by our society or not? It depends how you think we find out what we ought to do. If you think all truth is bound up in a single big book with a black leather cover and anything not to be found in it is not to be trusted, then you ought to ignore the standards of the society around you. Put homosexuals to death, don’t eat pork or shellfish, and I’m not sure why you’re reading this because the Bible doesn’t say anything about the internet. On the other hand, if you think truth is to be found by learning from the people around us and the way God has created the world, then perhaps there are times when the will of God is discerned better outside the church than within it.
Jonathan Clatworthy

Do bishops want a covenant?

2008-08-04T18:41:00.002+02:00

When the bishops at the Lambeth Conference got round to their formal discussions about the Covenant, opinions were divided; but the impression I got from those I spoke to (and this seems to have been the impression of the media) was that opinion was coalescing around two points.
1. There will have to be a Covenant. This is partly because Archbishop Rowan Williams has invested so heavily in it, and many of his supporters will support him even if privately they think otherwise. Others claim it’s the only way to hold the Communion together.
2. Not all Anglicans will sign up to the Covenant. Some will refuse. There is much speculation about who the refusers will be and what they will do.
Put these two points together and we get an interesting result. We need a Covenant to keep us together, and it won’t keep us together. Just remind me why we are to have one...
It’s an absurdity. How to explain it?
The key is that word ‘us’. Your perspective determines who needs to be kept together and who counts as dispensable. To some, GAFCON are on the dispensable fringe; to others the Americans are.
Which means it’s a political game; not so much an attempt to discern the will of God, more a power struggle. This surely explains why there is precious little serious analysis of the theological positions and astonishingly little concern for gays and lesbians themselves.
Jonathan Clatworthy

Should Lambeth decide?

2008-08-04T18:40:00.001+02:00

"I would like to see if we can have some suggestions coming out from this conference from where you can go from here rather than simply talking about the things we have been talking about for years." So said the Archbishop of Hong Kong in one of the few public expressions of frustration by the bishops at Lambeth. (bbc.co.uk 2 August).
While sympathizing with the feelings of frustration, we might perhaps bear in mind what happened ten years ago when formal resolutions were the order of the day.
What authority should they have? The famous Resolution 1.10 on homosexuality of the 1998 Conference has been trumpeted far and wide, and often claimed as the Anglican position on the matter. There is no justification for this, and would be no justification for more of the same. Bishops are neither delegates nor representatives of their provinces. Different provinces appoint their bishops in different ways, and as far as England is concerned the Archbishop of Uganda has recently reminded us that even the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by a secular government.
No doubt the internet has made it a great deal easier for churches to examine what their colleagues are doing in far distant parts of the world, and condemn practices of which they would previously have been ignorant. But the fact that we can police each other more easily does not mean that we ought to.
If decision-making powers are to be centralized, we need to be oh-so-careful about who has this new power. At present there are no democratically elected Communion-wide representative bodies. Rather than hand power to one of the unrepresentative bodies which already exist – like the Primates or the Lambeth Conference - perhaps we ought to create something new. Better still, resist the temptation to centralize and allow different provinces to do things differently.
Jonathan Clatworthy

This blog and a new blog

2008-08-02T14:28:00.007+02:00

You will have seen that, over the last few days, there has been a certain kerfuffle on this blog about a posting from Anglican Information which appeared and disappeared, followed by an explanation from John Plant.

Penwatch speculated about 'a little power struggle' - well, difference of opinion is as far as I'm prepared to go, on the whole I think the result of insufficient reflection rather than malice - so, sorry, definitely no conspiracy and no intimidation. (And, just to make it clear, no way is this site going to take lessons from David Virtue.)

Nonetheless the result is a change in direction for this blog. It will - pending discussion over port and coffee in the oak panelled MCU Senior Common Room - focus on specifically MCU matters. I shall continue to edit this blog, for the time being at least. And I apologise to those who visit this blog in order to read more than that.

On the other hand may I invite you over to Not the same stream, a new blog through which I wish to continue some of the same themes as have been followed here (not least, I hope, Anglican Information and the Covenant). There are a number of drawbacks to setting up a new blog, mostly around getting noticed, and so I hope you'll come over to drink in this new bar without, of course, deserting the old one.

Paul Bagshaw

Anglican Information

2008-08-01T13:20:00.001+02:00

Thanks for comments about the appearance and then disappearance of a post from Anglican Information. The first thing to say is that we’re grateful for the services of Anglican Information and insight it gives. However on this occasion there was a question in my mind about whether by posting the comments about Ruth Gledhill that we had broken our ‘only two rules’ of politeness and respect. That is inevitably a subjective judgement but one I continue to think was correct.

That does not mean however that we wish to stifle the debate about the issues themselves. Accusations continue to be made about the death of Canon Rodney Hunter and its right those should be challenged. There are also reasonable questions to be raised about how his death was reported at the time. Comments on those can be found on www.thinkinganglicans.org and www.anglican-information-archive.org .

The MCU welcomes and is committed to open, informed and reasoned debate and I believe our blog, thanks to the work of Paul Bagshaw, achieves a consistently high standard.
John Plant, Chair MCU

Lambeth Conference hots up

2008-07-31T15:23:00.001+02:00

Most of the time it has been so hot here at Canterbury that even the African bishops are complaining.
As you may know Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, wasn’t invited. He’s here incognito, hidden inside a rapidly moving crowd of television cameras. I don’t know how many talks he’s been invited to give but it’s far more than any other bishop.
A tight lid is kept on the bishops’ formal ruminations, but now and then something emerges. The basic system is the ‘indaba’ groups. It’s a Zulu word but the system is apparently common in Africa: when a decision is to be made, the tribal leaders gather for a meeting and everyone says their piece. Some bishops have been saying the Lambeth equivalent isn’t working the same way; in the African system everyone carries on talking until consensus is reached, without worrying about the time. Can’t do that here: this conference only lasts 3 weeks. But the idea is useful. Where do bishops get on well with each other? In da ba.
Most of the GAFCON bishops are not here, of course. How much difference does it make? Far be it from me to speculate. It could be quite irrelevant, but those who remember the last Lambeth say it’s better this time. One of the Franciscans on the Chaplaincy team says it’s more spiritual. Chris and John Simmonds (on the Progressive Christianity stall) told me about last night’s taxi ride. Unasked, the driver said “What a difference this year’s Lambeth Conference is! Ten years ago bishops were superior, stiff and starchy and talked down to us taxi drivers. They treated us like servants. But this year it’s so different. They have a laugh, they are friendly, courteous and generous. All the taxi drivers are talking about it”.
Those of us sitting in the marketplace have quiet spells, suddenly interrupted by crowds of bishops appearing at once after a session. We bounce up to them with a leaflet that says ‘Liberal Theology’ in large print. Some express disapproval; but if they try to avoid us and keep to the other side of the aisle they fall into the clutches of WATCH. On the other hand we’ve been surprised and encouraged by how many say things like ‘This is just what we need’; and far more have heard of us than we expected.
Many bishops are finding the programme too much like hard work. This morning they were talking about ‘human sexuality’. This presumably means they didn’t mention the birds and the bees. If anything interesting has yet emerged, it’ll be a while before we find out.
Jonathan Clatworthy

Bishop Bakare speaks from the Lambeth Conference

2008-07-30T23:18:00.002+02:00

From: Anglican-Information

Zimbabwe: Bishop Bakare speaks from the Lambeth Conference

Meanwhile at the Lambeth Conference at the University of Kent, Canterbury and concerning Zimbabwe: As reported by the Anglican Church of Canada website and various others, Bishop Sebastian Bakare Bishop of Harare, who replaced excommunicated Mugabe mouthpiece, Nolbert Kunonga warned on the recent Memorandum of Understanding signed on 21st July by Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsangerai.

‘History did not bode well for this undertaking – a similar undertaking signed in 1981 between Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo to end the civil war in Matabeleand, made Nkomo a member of the Mugabe government and effectively ended all opposition and the disappearance of Nkomo’s ZAPU party.’

Bishop Bakare said: “I am very fearful for the future coming from our history.’ – ‘I want to believe that the opposition party is aware thet Mugabe isn’t there just to hand in power – The MOU provides little hope.”

He went on to speak of Anglicans who “have stood up to the police – it’s their Church they’re fighting for… that’s the courage people have developed. What Zimbabweans’ urgently need is a deep sense of security without fear, the basic necessities of food and medicines and a climate where the rule of law is observed and human dignity is respected.”

Latest reports today speak of an impasse in the MOU talks and Morgan Tsangerai’s negotiators refusing the offer of a Vice-Presidential position for him – quite rightly as he won the Presidential election, even though it was heavily rigged.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reminds readers of how close to Nolbert Kunonga and Robert Mugabe former Archbishop Bernard Malango has been and how easy it would be for the poison (an effective metaphorical one this time) of the Mugabe regime to contaminate the thinking of some of the bishops of the Anglican Central African Province.

Lambeth depression

2008-07-27T20:22:00.003+02:00

I have watched the lack of news dribbling out of Lambeth with increasing depression. Sorry if that's evident in this post.

Why keep the media out so completely unless you think that episcopal deliberations are not to be shared with the wider public?

You may wish to keep bishops talking sideways to one another to avoid divisive clashes over contentions resolutions. However the result is that power is leached from the bishops and given to a small group - the Windsor Continuation Group, perhaps, or the people who set their agenda - which can meet and make decisions away from any scrutiny.

The announcement of the Faith and Order Commission was a curious affair. Newspaper headlines about the inquisition. The ABC saying he was just 'running a flag up the flagpole to see who salutes' - and how, without a process of voting is he to get an accurate count of the number of salutes? And anyway it was continuation of the work of the standing theological commission.

The Archbishop used the phrase 'council and covenant' in his opening address. It suggested that a new programme is being wheeled out slowly into the Conference (for it doesn't do to give the bishops everything at once - they might tell people outside the walls). Some of that is coming clearer and, when the covenant are announced (I doubt they will be much debated) the picture will become a little clearer. He also talked about the Anglican Communion as a Church, singular. He is very careful with language and I'd be surprised if that was a mistake (I saw a blog of a press conference where he dodged the issue).

A distinct non-Foca Global south gathering may suggest new regional entities in the communion. More likely (given past experience) it may mean another attempt to take power. Archbishop Chew and Michael Poon make a very influential combination.

But the overview for the next decade seems simple: more of the same. Concentrate decision making. Look to top down structures as though authoritarian equals authority, as though international means better, as though narrow conformity means a properly macho church.

But there may be two benefits. First, that that the church becomes so top down the bottom will scarcely notice. Second, perhaps those who do notice will begin not just to object to what is being done to them but also to develop alternative models of church governance. Inclusive models. That might prove interesting.

Follow Pluralist.

Paul Bagshaw

Zimbabwe sets an example for the Anglican Central African Province?

2008-07-23T11:57:00.002+02:00

From Anglican Information

The recently published Zimbabwean ‘Memorandum of Understanding’, an agreement to talks that has seen Robert Mugabe shake hands with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, has just been signed [It is set out here, and an open letter from Morgan Tsvangirai on signing it is here]

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION like most observers approaches this extraordinary document with great caution. However, it does represent an unexpected and unprecedented step forward brokered by South African President Thabo Mbeki. Hopefully it will be the beginning of a change in Zimbabwean politics although it is hard to see how the ‘Junta’ surrounding Robert Mugabe will agree to it and how Mugabe will not desperately try at least to secure some kind of immunity from prosecution. Practically anything is better than the current nightmare that is today’s Zimbabwe of fear and hunger.

At least this M.O.U. deserves some prayers for upon the future of the Zimbabwe regime hangs the fate of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe, currently victimised by Mugabe mouthpiece ‘Archbishop’ Nolbert Kunonga.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION observes that the Anglican Central African Province could ironically take a leaf out of the M.O.U. precedent by getting into some cordial and sensible discussions with all the interested parties in the dioceses of Lake Malawi and Upper Shire where negotiated solutions to episcopal elections still await. Perhaps the bishops will come back from the Lambeth Conference in a conciliatory mood after all the efforts to stabilize the Anglican Communion and restore dialogue? If Zimbabwe can do it – so can the Central African Province – conciliarity - that is after all how Anglicanism actually works.

Tradition Awareness Day

2008-07-22T14:50:00.004+02:00

Shamelessly pinched from the brilliant MadPriest.

Perhaps the MCU should sponsor the day - but not too assertively, of course.

From a divided land to a divided Church

2008-07-21T10:06:00.004+02:00

Duleep de Chickera, Bishop of Colombo

Sermon by the Right Reverend Duleep de Chickera, the Bishop of Colombo

I commend to you Duleep de Chickera's sermon to the assembled bishops - here in its entirety.

Before the service, said Ruth Gledhill in The Times,

Speaking quietly but with passionate insistence, the slightly-built bishop said: "Certainly the crisis is complex. It is not a crisis that can be resolved instantly and the journey ahead is a long and arduous one, a journey that will demand our prayers, our faithfulness, our mutual trust in each other and our trust in God who makes reconcilation possible."
Bishop de Chickera, himself a cricket fan, joked that perhaps the bishops should take a few hours off to sort out their differences as gentlemen and players.
He said: "Sri Lanka is a land of five world religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and cricket. Those of us who organised this conference planned an afternoon aside for cricket - and a game called baseball for the uninitiated."

His prescribed balm for the wounded Communion was:

...our communion must return to the discipline and the practice of self-scrutiny. We have a rich tradition that supports this discipline - the retreat, the quiet time, contemplation, meditation, spiritual counsellors, all of which enhance this practice and discipline of men and women coming to God in stillness to evaluate and examine their lives:- the parable of the plank and the speck of dust. ...
... we need to resuscitate and declare again and again, and that is the challenge of unity in diversity. As I look around and see you, I see this wonderful unity in diversity. Shortly, when the sacrament is administered, lips from numerous countries, numerous nationalities, numerous cultures will touch the same cup. We are united in spite of the fact that we are different, because in Christ we are equal. There's enough to go around if none will be greedy. ...
... the prophetic voice. Very often people say: "all this talk of reconciliation is not complete unless we address and deal with the injustice of the world." And so the Anglican Communion must articulate this prophetic voice regardless of where we serve in the world. Now as many of you will be aware, the prophetic voice has two strands, and it is imperative that these strands are held together. The first is the prophetic voice is a voice for the voiceless. There are those who for political reasons, cultural reasons, economic reasons, military reasons, cannot speak for themselves, or if they do, they do so at tremendous risk. And so the Anglican Communion must speak on their behalf - whether it is the crisis in Sri Lanka, whether it is the crisis in Zimbabwe, or Sudan, or Afghanistan or Iraq. The voiceless must be given a voice through the leadership of the Anglican Communion. The second strand that goes with a voice for the voiceless, is the calling into accountability of those who abuse power: authoritarian regimes who oppress and suppress the people. The prophetic voice will ask poignant, relevant questions: "why", and sometimes, "how dare you?"

All well worth reading.