THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

BBC Radio 4

Thought for the Day, 21 November 2006

The Rt Revd Tom Butler

Good morning. The Archbishop of Canterbury starts his visit to the Vatican today and the standard story is that progress towards unity between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican Communion has been set back, sadly, by the ordination of women as priests and bishops and the fracas concerning gay priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion. There is another way of viewing the same happenings. The Church of England sees itself as being both Catholic and Reformed, taking on many of the reforms of the Reformation Churches whilst keeping a continuity with the catholic nature of the ordained ministry. More than this, it is possible to see the Church of England as a Prophetic, Catholic and Reformed Church, thoughtfully and prayerful making the developments that the wider catholic and orthodox churches might wish to take into their system later. For example, at the reformation the Book of Prayer offered the people of England and subsequently people in other lands, worship in their own vernacular language. It took four centuries before the Roman Catholic church replaced the Latin mass by local languages as the norm of their worship. Again, the Church of England since the reformation has allowed its clergy to marry. It's only in the last dozen years that the Roman Catholic church in England has allowed former Anglican priests to become Roman Catholic priests, despite them being married, surely indicating that there is nothing theologically inherent preventing a married man being a priest. Now we have the development of women being ordained as priests in the Anglican Communion. The decision was taken to ordain them believing that this was a legitimate development of church order. Over two thousand have already been ordained in the Church of England, I have 175 ministering in my own diocese. Women now form half the candidates at every ordination. It's nonsensical to believe that there'll be any going back and nor should there be. Women priests aren't a problem they're a blessing, not only to the Church of England, but to the wider community and I believe to the whole catholic church in years to come. And what of gay priests? Of course there are divisions and splits in the Anglican Communion over this issue at the present time, and because we are a transparent church, the arguments are conducted in public. But Archbishop and Pope both know that they have serving their respective churches innumerable dedicated and devoted gay priests, often ministering in the most difficult and dangerous places on earth. They're not a problem. They're a blessing. We may be in the winter of church unity negotiations, but calling blessings problems isn't the way to move towards the spring.

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

Reflections on Ecclesiastical Titbits IX

The story of Sodom has for many years been understood as representing a condemnation of homosexuality. From other Biblical references it is seen that the sins of Sodom were many and varied. Sins such as pride (Ecc16:8) (Wis. 19:13-14) and lack of hospitality (Matt 10:14-15) (Luke 10: 10-12), outweighed sexual sin. (Ez. 16: 48-49)

Therefore when members of the church chose to judge homosexuals as an unworthy minority, then such judges are themselves guilty of the sins of pride and inhospitality.

We cloud the issue by saying that gay and lesbian people can come and sit in the church pews. Then we again become exclusive, by saying they are not worthy to answer a call to be church elders or to ordination. By sitting in such judgement we are guilty of the sin of pride. As “Piscator” points out, there is no medical evidence that homosexuality is a chosen state. We are born as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. That is, this is the way we are created. Who created us? God. God looked on his creation and saw that it was very good (Gen 1:31). I for one do not chose to say to God that he made a mistake when he created homosexuals, I would rather rejoice in all of God’s creation.

When members of one fraction of the church condemn the ordination of homosexuals or the consecration of women whose ‘call” has been recognised by their Bishops are we in fact questioning God’s right to call these people?

Yes Lord we know you teach us to show love to our neighbour, to welcome all people and care for them but please Lord don’t call anyone to ministry who does not fit into our pattern of “normal”

From Kotuku

ECCLESIASTICAL TITBITS IX

Reflections on Ecclesiastical Titbits IX

The story of Sodom has for many years been understood as representing a condemnation of homosexuality. From other Biblical references it is seen that the sins of Sodom were many and varied. Sins such as pride (Ecc16:8) (Wis. 19:13-14) and lack of hospitality (Matt 10:14-15) (Luke 10: 10-12), outweighed sexual sin. (Ez. 16: 48-49)

Therefore when members of the church chose to judge homosexuals as an unworthy minority, then such judges are themselves guilty of the sins of pride and inhospitality.

We cloud the issue by saying that gay and lesbian people can come and sit in the church pews. Then we again become exclusive, by saying they are not worthy to answer a call to be church elders or to ordination. By sitting in such judgement we are guilty of the sin of pride. As “Piscator” points out, there is no medical evidence that homosexuality is a chosen state. We are born as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. That is, this is the way we are created. Who created us? God. God looked on his creation and saw that it was very good (Gen 1:31). I for one do not chose to say to God that he made a mistake when he created homosexuals, I would rather rejoice in all of God’s creation.

When members of one fraction of the church condemn the ordination of homosexuals or the consecration of women whose ‘call” has been recognised by their Bishops are we in fact questioning God’s right to call these people?

Yes Lord we know you teach us to show love to our neighbour, to welcome all people and care for them but please Lord don’t call anyone to ministry who does not fit into our pattern of “normal”

From Kotuku

Anglican Ways Group

Minutes of a Meeting of the Anglican Ways Group held in the Sunday School Hall of St John the Evangelist Church Bishopdale, on Wednesday 13 September 2006, at 11.00 am.

CHAIR: Fr Bob Peck.

OPENING PRAYERS: Bob.

PRESENT: Bob Peck, Jenny Daniels, Michael Ladd, John Fisher, Jillian Fisher, Charlie Batterbury, (minutes), Bernard Richards.

BUSINESS:

1. Change “from ‘precious’ meeting, to ‘previous’ meeting”, on the Agenda.

2. General discussion as to why Anglican Ways has slowed down.
We should email minutes to Hugh Bowron, Lawrence Kimberley, and David Moore, any others?
What can we do to enliven interest, especially among younger people?
How to interest people in the seminars.
Us few can actually run it ok- do we need more people at these meetings?
It is not a numbers thing.
Our advertising has not been high powered. And we are more the leaven, and educational.
We need to do a few things and do them well.

3. These minutes could also go to Archdeacons, Mother Judith and the Community, and Latimer Fellowship, via Wally Behan.

4. Question we asked via the minutes, on thoughts on the Evening Services we have been holding, none.

5. Next Seminar, possibly Saturday 11 November 9.30 am to 3.30 pm.
General discussion on possible topics:
- Is the Church Militant or Moribund?
– Islam and Christianity.
– Sport and Religion.
– What is a Liberal?
– Future of Three Tikanga Church.
– What is Mainstream?
– Gay issue, ordination of gay people.
– Split to two parts of the same Church.

6. We should put the minutes on the Website.

The meeting closed at 12.36 pm.

NEXT MEETING: Wednesday 18 October, here.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITBITS VIII

Over the years in many places, and from many sources, I have had occasion, as many of you will have, to ponder the different expectations people have and express about being Christian. I am thinking here of illness and how it strikes us all, or nearly all of us, with its inevitable disabling effects either temporarily or permanently.

The views I have met include that of those who believe sickness results from sin and that repentance and penance, as well as true belief, will result in restoration to health. Others see it as an evil visitation signifying the presence of evil or the devil in the world. There are also those who think Christians should be exempt from illness because of their faith and special relationship with God and so on. Others are more pragmatic and accept that it is an inevitable fact of life and to be borne stoically or treated and overcome.

Truth is, sickness, with all its attendant inconveniences, troubles and even death visits the Christian and non-Christian impartially. It’s like the rain which falls on the just and the unjust without distinction or thought or sensitivity to the nature or status of the person.

For the Christian the difference comes from the way we understand God and how we use our faith to deal with illness and death. Our great advantage is that we have Christ, prayer, the sacrament of healing and a strong belief in the ultimate trustworthiness of God. We believe that whatever happens our spirit can be and will be healed. We believe that it is God’s faithfulness to us that means, in the end, we meet with Him as new beings who have been made whole through His love as expressed in the Christ. Then we will know that sickness and tribulation are part of life and borne through our faith and sharing in Christ’s suffering.

PISCATOR

Church Times

29.09.06

Anglicans need a 19th-hole approach
By Giles Fraser

NEATLY STITCHED on the back of the caps of the American Ryder Cup team, each player had his own name. On the back of the European caps, each player had one word: Europe. It’s hard not to read the US defeat as an indictment of the bowling-alone individualism that is often said to characterise much of US culture. Europe, on the other hand, played as a team.

Given this, it is worth noting that many of the US team are Christians. The American captain, Tom Lehman, once wrote: ‘God has definitely used golf in a great way over the last several years. I think of myself as a Christian who plays golf, not as a golfer who is a Christian.’ The Americans, unlike the Euros, had a chaplain as a part of their entourage. Throughout the golf, Mr Lehman fiddled nervously with his WWJD bangle (‘What Would Jesus Do?’, for those not in the know).

It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t seem to have induced a greater camaraderie or team spirit among the Americans. The apparently godless Euros expressed a fierce and emotional solidarity that was, apparently, found at the bottom of several pints of Guinness. The boozy rituals of male bonding seemed to draw players closer than the emotional intensity of pious prayer meetings.

Years ago, I played in an American clergy golf competition in Alabama. I am still in contact with many of the players. I have no idea what they make of gay vicars or women bishops, though many are from conservative dioceses. But, if we did have a row about it, the friendship we forged will make it so much less likely that we will want to walk apart.

Here is the punchline. If Christians, and specifically Anglicans, spent more time developing friendships with each other, we would be so much less willing to press the self-destruct button at the first sign of disagreement. A bit more in vino veritas down the bar, a bit less manipulation through mini-sermons masquerading as intercessions.

What the current crisis in our Church shows is that many of us, and the clergy especially, have not been good at investing in friendships with each other. It is no wonder, therefore, that we don’t play as a team. Diocesan conferences, with all that competitive niceness, are no place to make real friends.

In answer to Mr Lehman’s WWJD question, we ought to recall how often Jesus was accused of wasting his time by eating and drinking with friends. So can I put in a plea to the organisers of the next Lambeth Conference? Make them laugh, make them cry, and, for goodness’ sake, get them drunk.

The Revd Dr Giles Fraser is Team Rector of Putney, and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford.

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

---

The end of Communion?

The end of the Communion?

A press release from Inclusive Church

1.0 As a result of the statements issued by the meeting of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ in Kigali, the Anglican Communion has been moved into completely new territory. (http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/) . We are presented with a situation where the possibility of dialogue between believing Christians is being closed down. Both the tone and the content of the Communique of the Primates of the Global South reflect an understanding of the Church which is profoundly un-Anglican, and represents a radical departure from both our ecclesiology and our traditions. We are sleepwalking towards a new church, and unless the silent majority of Anglicans do take action we will wake up to find we have lost the Church and the Christianity we hold dear.

2.0 ‘One church, one bishop, one territory’ is fundamental to our Anglican polity and identity; to say that it is now ‘outdated’ is to deny the whole history of Anglicanism . To say that many of the Primates can either not be in communion or to be in ‘impaired communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) represents a theological and ecclesiological nonsense, The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God which is not capable of impairment. We trust in God and give thanks to Him for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist.

3.0 The proposal to create two parallel jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion, separate but both nominally Anglican through their relationship with Canterbury, rides roughshod over the Instruments of Unity and over the Windsor process. It also represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Anglican identity. If we are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury we cannot be out of communion with one another.

But we remember that many of the primates of the ‘Global South’ absented themselves from a Eucharist to which they were invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference in 2005. We draw the conclusion from that that their allegiance to Canterbury is at best skin deep, and subject to his confirmation of their particular position on matters of human sexuality.

We also note that the Communique did not involve or receive the assent of the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Province of Southern Africa, and we wonder how many other Provinces’ assent has been assumed instead of confirmed.

4.0 Those who believe in a church which is both inclusive and welcoming have until now sought to respond to the actions of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ with reason and restraint. As a result, factions within our Church have pushed harder and harder at the bounds of communion. Their proposals now bear only a tangential resemblance to the Anglicanism which has until now defined and developed the Communion.

5.0 We note too that significant amounts of funding for many of the organisations which have led on these – notably the American Anglican Council, Anglican Communion Network and Anglican Mainstream – have come from the Ahmanson family and other non-Anglican, politically conservative foundations based in the United States. (http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html) This funding has enabled the due processes of the Anglican Communion to be subverted and hijacked, raising issues of family life and human sexuality to a prominence within the life of our church which is unjustified and out of

proportion to the Gospel values of love and justice.

6.0 We have noted with concern that although the Archbishop of Canterbury has implicitly on a number of occasions publicly been critical of the actions of TEC - for example in his recent Pastoral Letter (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060915a.htm) he has as yet not been critical of the very serious breaches of the Instruments of Unity by the Church of Nigeria; for example, the creation of a Bishop in the United States in complete contravention of Windsor guidelines on provincial boundaries. Neither has he challenged the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm) despite his condemnation of homophobia on several occasions.

7.0 We note that the Communique from the Primates of the ‘Global South’ identifies the Church of England as being compromised by its attitude towards the civil partnership legislation in this country. We believe it is important in this context for the Church of England to be clear on its current practice. Namely, that hundreds if not thousands of same-gender partnerships have been celebrated over the past thirty years, in churches, by priests and deacons. Further, that there have been, and in the future no doubt will be homosexual bishops in relationships within our church. Any Covenant, therefore, which excludes members of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada will have also to exclude the Church of England.

8.0 In the light of what is being produced by the ‘Global South’ we have the following questions for which we request urgent clarification from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office

8.1 Will they confirm that all Bishops duly elected or appointed and with current responsibilities in the Communion will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference? There can be no other way to ensure that those loyal to the principles of Anglicanism are duly and properly involved in the life of our Communion.

8.2 If ‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’ is granted for the Dioceses seeking it in the United States, what equivalent oversight will be offered to LGBT Christians experiencing danger and discrimination in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?

8.3 What structures exist to permit the selection of an ‘alternative’ to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to attend Primates’ meetings?

8.4 Is the development of parallel jurisdictions acceptable to the ACO? If it is, then what is to stop the development of more jurisdictions on other matters?

8.5 The ‘Global South’ Primates appear to be seeking to pre-empt the Covenant process by preparing a draft with the clear intention of requiring assent to confessional propositions related to homosexuality. What implications does this have for the process of agreeing a Covenant which recognises the depth and breadth of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Reformed?

8.6 What brief was given to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester in their recent attendance at a meeting of Bishops of TEC?

9.0 We are also concerned by the silence from the Bishops of the Church of England. The implications of the ‘Global South’ developments may well, in the near future, have an impact on the Church of England. Indeed there have already been actions which indicate the shape of things to come, such as the unauthorised ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark. There are significant numbers of English Bishops who are deeply perturbed by the actions of their colleagues across the world, and deeply concerned to counter homophobia and prejudice. Why are they not speaking?

10.0 Today we celebrate the life of Lancelot Andrewes, one of the fathers of our church. We deeply regret the way in which the Communion is being undermined and sidetracked by a false Anglicanism which neither reflects nor pays tribute to our history. We trust and pray that the dialogue to which we are all as Christians called will continue so that the Gospel of Christ may flourish in this country and across the Communion.

Giles Goddard

Chair, InclusiveChurch

Lancelot Andrewes; 25th September 2006

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

The end of the Communion?

A press release from Inclusive Church

1.0 As a result of the statements issued by the meeting of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ in Kigali, the Anglican Communion has been moved into completely new territory. (http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/) . We are presented with a situation where the possibility of dialogue between believing Christians is being closed down. Both the tone and the content of the Communique of the Primates of the Global South reflect an understanding of the Church which is profoundly un-Anglican, and represents a radical departure from both our ecclesiology and our traditions. We are sleepwalking towards a new church, and unless the silent majority of Anglicans do take action we will wake up to find we have lost the Church and the Christianity we hold dear.

2.0 ‘One church, one bishop, one territory’ is fundamental to our Anglican polity and identity; to say that it is now ‘outdated’ is to deny the whole history of Anglicanism . To say that many of the Primates can either not be in communion or to be in ‘impaired communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) represents a theological and ecclesiological nonsense, The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God which is not capable of impairment. We trust in God and give thanks to Him for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist.

3.0 The proposal to create two parallel jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion, separate but both nominally Anglican through their relationship with Canterbury, rides roughshod over the Instruments of Unity and over the Windsor process. It also represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Anglican identity. If we are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury we cannot be out of communion with one another.

But we remember that many of the primates of the ‘Global South’ absented themselves from a Eucharist to which they were invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference in 2005. We draw the conclusion from that that their allegiance to Canterbury is at best skin deep, and subject to his confirmation of their particular position on matters of human sexuality.

We also note that the Communique did not involve or receive the assent of the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Province of Southern Africa, and we wonder how many other Provinces’ assent has been assumed instead of confirmed.

4.0 Those who believe in a church which is both inclusive and welcoming have until now sought to respond to the actions of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ with reason and restraint. As a result, factions within our Church have pushed harder and harder at the bounds of communion. Their proposals now bear only a tangential resemblance to the Anglicanism which has until now defined and developed the Communion.

5.0 We note too that significant amounts of funding for many of the organisations which have led on these – notably the American Anglican Council, Anglican Communion Network and Anglican Mainstream – have come from the Ahmanson family and other non-Anglican, politically conservative foundations based in the United States. (http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html) This funding has enabled the due processes of the Anglican Communion to be subverted and hijacked, raising issues of family life and human sexuality to a prominence within the life of our church which is unjustified and out of

proportion to the Gospel values of love and justice.

6.0 We have noted with concern that although the Archbishop of Canterbury has implicitly on a number of occasions publicly been critical of the actions of TEC - for example in his recent Pastoral Letter (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060915a.htm) he has as yet not been critical of the very serious breaches of the Instruments of Unity by the Church of Nigeria; for example, the creation of a Bishop in the United States in complete contravention of Windsor guidelines on provincial boundaries. Neither has he challenged the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm) despite his condemnation of homophobia on several occasions.

7.0 We note that the Communique from the Primates of the ‘Global South’ identifies the Church of England as being compromised by its attitude towards the civil partnership legislation in this country. We believe it is important in this context for the Church of England to be clear on its current practice. Namely, that hundreds if not thousands of same-gender partnerships have been celebrated over the past thirty years, in churches, by priests and deacons. Further, that there have been, and in the future no doubt will be homosexual bishops in relationships within our church. Any Covenant, therefore, which excludes members of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada will have also to exclude the Church of England.

8.0 In the light of what is being produced by the ‘Global South’ we have the following questions for which we request urgent clarification from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office

8.1 Will they confirm that all Bishops duly elected or appointed and with current responsibilities in the Communion will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference? There can be no other way to ensure that those loyal to the principles of Anglicanism are duly and properly involved in the life of our Communion.

8.2 If ‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’ is granted for the Dioceses seeking it in the United States, what equivalent oversight will be offered to LGBT Christians experiencing danger and discrimination in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?

8.3 What structures exist to permit the selection of an ‘alternative’ to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to attend Primates’ meetings?

8.4 Is the development of parallel jurisdictions acceptable to the ACO? If it is, then what is to stop the development of more jurisdictions on other matters?

8.5 The ‘Global South’ Primates appear to be seeking to pre-empt the Covenant process by preparing a draft with the clear intention of requiring assent to confessional propositions related to homosexuality. What implications does this have for the process of agreeing a Covenant which recognises the depth and breadth of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Reformed?

8.6 What brief was given to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester in their recent attendance at a meeting of Bishops of TEC?

9.0 We are also concerned by the silence from the Bishops of the Church of England. The implications of the ‘Global South’ developments may well, in the near future, have an impact on the Church of England. Indeed there have already been actions which indicate the shape of things to come, such as the unauthorised ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark. There are significant numbers of English Bishops who are deeply perturbed by the actions of their colleagues across the world, and deeply concerned to counter homophobia and prejudice. Why are they not speaking?

10.0 Today we celebrate the life of Lancelot Andrewes, one of the fathers of our church. We deeply regret the way in which the Communion is being undermined and sidetracked by a false Anglicanism which neither reflects nor pays tribute to our history. We trust and pray that the dialogue to which we are all as Christians called will continue so that the Gospel of Christ may flourish in this country and across the Communion.

Giles Goddard

Chair, InclusiveChurch

Lancelot Andrewes; 25th September 2006

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

The end of the Communion?

A press release from Inclusive Church

1.0 As a result of the statements issued by the meeting of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ in Kigali, the Anglican Communion has been moved into completely new territory. (http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/) . We are presented with a situation where the possibility of dialogue between believing Christians is being closed down. Both the tone and the content of the Communique of the Primates of the Global South reflect an understanding of the Church which is profoundly un-Anglican, and represents a radical departure from both our ecclesiology and our traditions. We are sleepwalking towards a new church, and unless the silent majority of Anglicans do take action we will wake up to find we have lost the Church and the Christianity we hold dear.

2.0 ‘One church, one bishop, one territory’ is fundamental to our Anglican polity and identity; to say that it is now ‘outdated’ is to deny the whole history of Anglicanism . To say that many of the Primates can either not be in communion or to be in ‘impaired communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) represents a theological and ecclesiological nonsense, The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God which is not capable of impairment. We trust in God and give thanks to Him for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist.

3.0 The proposal to create two parallel jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion, separate but both nominally Anglican through their relationship with Canterbury, rides roughshod over the Instruments of Unity and over the Windsor process. It also represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Anglican identity. If we are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury we cannot be out of communion with one another.

But we remember that many of the primates of the ‘Global South’ absented themselves from a Eucharist to which they were invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference in 2005. We draw the conclusion from that that their allegiance to Canterbury is at best skin deep, and subject to his confirmation of their particular position on matters of human sexuality.

We also note that the Communique did not involve or receive the assent of the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Province of Southern Africa, and we wonder how many other Provinces’ assent has been assumed instead of confirmed.

4.0 Those who believe in a church which is both inclusive and welcoming have until now sought to respond to the actions of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ with reason and restraint. As a result, factions within our Church have pushed harder and harder at the bounds of communion. Their proposals now bear only a tangential resemblance to the Anglicanism which has until now defined and developed the Communion.

5.0 We note too that significant amounts of funding for many of the organisations which have led on these – notably the American Anglican Council, Anglican Communion Network and Anglican Mainstream – have come from the Ahmanson family and other non-Anglican, politically conservative foundations based in the United States. (http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html) This funding has enabled the due processes of the Anglican Communion to be subverted and hijacked, raising issues of family life and human sexuality to a prominence within the life of our church which is unjustified and out of

proportion to the Gospel values of love and justice.

6.0 We have noted with concern that although the Archbishop of Canterbury has implicitly on a number of occasions publicly been critical of the actions of TEC - for example in his recent Pastoral Letter (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060915a.htm) he has as yet not been critical of the very serious breaches of the Instruments of Unity by the Church of Nigeria; for example, the creation of a Bishop in the United States in complete contravention of Windsor guidelines on provincial boundaries. Neither has he challenged the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm) despite his condemnation of homophobia on several occasions.

7.0 We note that the Communique from the Primates of the ‘Global South’ identifies the Church of England as being compromised by its attitude towards the civil partnership legislation in this country. We believe it is important in this context for the Church of England to be clear on its current practice. Namely, that hundreds if not thousands of same-gender partnerships have been celebrated over the past thirty years, in churches, by priests and deacons. Further, that there have been, and in the future no doubt will be homosexual bishops in relationships within our church. Any Covenant, therefore, which excludes members of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada will have also to exclude the Church of England.

8.0 In the light of what is being produced by the ‘Global South’ we have the following questions for which we request urgent clarification from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office

8.1 Will they confirm that all Bishops duly elected or appointed and with current responsibilities in the Communion will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference? There can be no other way to ensure that those loyal to the principles of Anglicanism are duly and properly involved in the life of our Communion.

8.2 If ‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’ is granted for the Dioceses seeking it in the United States, what equivalent oversight will be offered to LGBT Christians experiencing danger and discrimination in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?

8.3 What structures exist to permit the selection of an ‘alternative’ to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to attend Primates’ meetings?

8.4 Is the development of parallel jurisdictions acceptable to the ACO? If it is, then what is to stop the development of more jurisdictions on other matters?

8.5 The ‘Global South’ Primates appear to be seeking to pre-empt the Covenant process by preparing a draft with the clear intention of requiring assent to confessional propositions related to homosexuality. What implications does this have for the process of agreeing a Covenant which recognises the depth and breadth of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Reformed?

8.6 What brief was given to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester in their recent attendance at a meeting of Bishops of TEC?

9.0 We are also concerned by the silence from the Bishops of the Church of England. The implications of the ‘Global South’ developments may well, in the near future, have an impact on the Church of England. Indeed there have already been actions which indicate the shape of things to come, such as the unauthorised ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark. There are significant numbers of English Bishops who are deeply perturbed by the actions of their colleagues across the world, and deeply concerned to counter homophobia and prejudice. Why are they not speaking?

10.0 Today we celebrate the life of Lancelot Andrewes, one of the fathers of our church. We deeply regret the way in which the Communion is being undermined and sidetracked by a false Anglicanism which neither reflects nor pays tribute to our history. We trust and pray that the dialogue to which we are all as Christians called will continue so that the Gospel of Christ may flourish in this country and across the Communion.

Giles Goddard

Chair, InclusiveChurch

Lancelot Andrewes; 25th September 2006

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

The end of the Communion?

A press release from Inclusive Church

1.0 As a result of the statements issued by the meeting of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ in Kigali, the Anglican Communion has been moved into completely new territory. (http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/) . We are presented with a situation where the possibility of dialogue between believing Christians is being closed down. Both the tone and the content of the Communique of the Primates of the Global South reflect an understanding of the Church which is profoundly un-Anglican, and represents a radical departure from both our ecclesiology and our traditions. We are sleepwalking towards a new church, and unless the silent majority of Anglicans do take action we will wake up to find we have lost the Church and the Christianity we hold dear.

2.0 ‘One church, one bishop, one territory’ is fundamental to our Anglican polity and identity; to say that it is now ‘outdated’ is to deny the whole history of Anglicanism . To say that many of the Primates can either not be in communion or to be in ‘impaired communion’ with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) represents a theological and ecclesiological nonsense, The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God which is not capable of impairment. We trust in God and give thanks to Him for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist.

3.0 The proposal to create two parallel jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion, separate but both nominally Anglican through their relationship with Canterbury, rides roughshod over the Instruments of Unity and over the Windsor process. It also represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Anglican identity. If we are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury we cannot be out of communion with one another.

But we remember that many of the primates of the ‘Global South’ absented themselves from a Eucharist to which they were invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference in 2005. We draw the conclusion from that that their allegiance to Canterbury is at best skin deep, and subject to his confirmation of their particular position on matters of human sexuality.

We also note that the Communique did not involve or receive the assent of the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Province of Southern Africa, and we wonder how many other Provinces’ assent has been assumed instead of confirmed.

4.0 Those who believe in a church which is both inclusive and welcoming have until now sought to respond to the actions of the Primates of the ‘Global South’ with reason and restraint. As a result, factions within our Church have pushed harder and harder at the bounds of communion. Their proposals now bear only a tangential resemblance to the Anglicanism which has until now defined and developed the Communion.

5.0 We note too that significant amounts of funding for many of the organisations which have led on these – notably the American Anglican Council, Anglican Communion Network and Anglican Mainstream – have come from the Ahmanson family and other non-Anglican, politically conservative foundations based in the United States. (http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html) This funding has enabled the due processes of the Anglican Communion to be subverted and hijacked, raising issues of family life and human sexuality to a prominence within the life of our church which is unjustified and out of

proportion to the Gospel values of love and justice.

6.0 We have noted with concern that although the Archbishop of Canterbury has implicitly on a number of occasions publicly been critical of the actions of TEC - for example in his recent Pastoral Letter (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060915a.htm) he has as yet not been critical of the very serious breaches of the Instruments of Unity by the Church of Nigeria; for example, the creation of a Bishop in the United States in complete contravention of Windsor guidelines on provincial boundaries. Neither has he challenged the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm) despite his condemnation of homophobia on several occasions.

7.0 We note that the Communique from the Primates of the ‘Global South’ identifies the Church of England as being compromised by its attitude towards the civil partnership legislation in this country. We believe it is important in this context for the Church of England to be clear on its current practice. Namely, that hundreds if not thousands of same-gender partnerships have been celebrated over the past thirty years, in churches, by priests and deacons. Further, that there have been, and in the future no doubt will be homosexual bishops in relationships within our church. Any Covenant, therefore, which excludes members of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada will have also to exclude the Church of England.

8.0 In the light of what is being produced by the ‘Global South’ we have the following questions for which we request urgent clarification from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office

8.1 Will they confirm that all Bishops duly elected or appointed and with current responsibilities in the Communion will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference? There can be no other way to ensure that those loyal to the principles of Anglicanism are duly and properly involved in the life of our Communion.

8.2 If ‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’ is granted for the Dioceses seeking it in the United States, what equivalent oversight will be offered to LGBT Christians experiencing danger and discrimination in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?

8.3 What structures exist to permit the selection of an ‘alternative’ to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to attend Primates’ meetings?

8.4 Is the development of parallel jurisdictions acceptable to the ACO? If it is, then what is to stop the development of more jurisdictions on other matters?

8.5 The ‘Global South’ Primates appear to be seeking to pre-empt the Covenant process by preparing a draft with the clear intention of requiring assent to confessional propositions related to homosexuality. What implications does this have for the process of agreeing a Covenant which recognises the depth and breadth of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Reformed?

8.6 What brief was given to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester in their recent attendance at a meeting of Bishops of TEC?

9.0 We are also concerned by the silence from the Bishops of the Church of England. The implications of the ‘Global South’ developments may well, in the near future, have an impact on the Church of England. Indeed there have already been actions which indicate the shape of things to come, such as the unauthorised ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark. There are significant numbers of English Bishops who are deeply perturbed by the actions of their colleagues across the world, and deeply concerned to counter homophobia and prejudice. Why are they not speaking?

10.0 Today we celebrate the life of Lancelot Andrewes, one of the fathers of our church. We deeply regret the way in which the Communion is being undermined and sidetracked by a false Anglicanism which neither reflects nor pays tribute to our history. We trust and pray that the dialogue to which we are all as Christians called will continue so that the Gospel of Christ may flourish in this country and across the Communion.

Giles Goddard

Chair, InclusiveChurch

Lancelot Andrewes; 25th September 2006

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

ECCLESIASTICAL TITBITS VI

ECCLESIASTICAL TITBITS VI

Lately I’ve heard and read a lot about the probable breakup of the Anglican Church. There are factions, one in particular, in the Church which appear to want their views to dominate; in fact they see their belief system as the only way and want the rest of us to conform to their ways.

I grew up in the Church, the Church of England it was in my early days but always the Province of New Zealand. It was a great experience. In it I found faith and belief, acceptance, support, fellowship, a rich liturgy and an ethos which included many shades of belief and practice. Different parishes emphasised different things and the richness and glory were there for all to relish. Each took spiritual sustenance from whatever formularies built up their faith and being. There was diversity, but it was diversity in unity. We valued one another, we enriched one another.

Everything is changing and, while change is inevitable, it is not always going in the best direction. So I was saddened to find that there are parishes which proclaim ‘this is a Mainstream Parish’ and will hear no other words of faith. Quite apart from the arrogance and misuse of the term ‘mainstream’ they have departed from New Testament Christianity. St Paul wrote to the Corinthians “… it is clear that there are serious differences among you. What I mean are all these slogans that you have, like; ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Cephas”, ‘I am for Christ’. Has Christ been parcelled out? Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Were you baptised in the name of Paul?” (I Cor I: 11b-13 Jerusalem Bible)

Should any parish ever proclaim that it is ‘an AnglicanWays’ parish then it would be clear that AnglicanWays has failed to follow its principles. for AnglicanWays seeks to unify and regain the ethos of the Church It embraces all forms of the church, all styles are in its understanding and contribute to its hope for the future.



There seem many things which now divide which did not do so before. In the past we had different approaches to scripture; we had differing liturgical practices, we accepted ‘all sorts and conditions’ of people including homosexuals – we even ordained the latter without asking questions. These and many other things were not an issue. Now we are in the grip of the ‘new puritans’ who are making issues out of all these things and many others. If we want to preserve the church and its unity, we must seek to renew the tolerance and understanding that characterised the church in the past. That the Church will survive the divisiveness initiated by these factions and grow in strength and understanding, and continue to be inclusive, is my prayer.

PISCATOR

Koha

AnglicanWays does not levy a subscription. Instead it leaves it open for those who are members, or wish to be members, to make their own koha. That means that they give what they are able to give. One may give a dollar; another $50. Whatever the amount all remain equal. [ Koha is best translated into pakeha as gift.]