Category Archives: Anglican Churches

Archbishop doesn't like the political bits

Posted on by
37

Ruth Gledhill has a short post whose significance is in its title rather than its content: Rowan: ‘I like my job – except the political bits.’ For the evidence for this title she links to her article today in The Times, about how the Archbishop of Canterbury was interviewed by three teenagers for a youth magazine. She reports that

he enjoys his job – “at least the non-political side of things.” This is because he is passionate about the environment and likes meeting people.

But I was encouraged by these words of Archbishop Williams, in the same interview:

I have no problem with gay clergy who aren’t in relationships, although there are savage arguments about the issue you might have heard about. Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible, gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practicing [sic, even in The Times] homosexual relationships don’t. This major question doesn’t have a quick fix solution and I imagine will be debated for many years to come.

Well said, Your Grace. But if that is really what you believe, Continue reading →

Anglican warfare

Posted on by
Reply

A quote from Ruth Gledhill of The Times:

The chilling thing about Anglican warfare is that participants are too well-versed in the Word ever to need to resort to true expletives. Instead, we try to murder each other with the sharp veneer of Christian civility honed through decades of service on parochial church councils.

Well, the current goings-on in the USA and Canada, where real splits and legal proceedings are now under way, show some worldwide Anglicans in a slightly different light. But in the Church of England which I know and have a love-hate relationship with, Ruth’s description still seems to fit.

Gene Robinson to be a "June bride"

Posted on by
Reply

Bishop Gene Robinson, the infamous gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, is reported as saying:

I always wanted to be a June bride.

And so he is planning to “march down the aisle” with his partner Mark, in a same sex legal union, in June 2008 (not July 4th as reported by Ruth Gledhill). Well, as I wrote in comments here and here, and see also this post, I consider this to be a small step in the right direction: if he will not give up his gay union, it is best that he formally acknowledges it and pledges himself to being faithful to his partner.

But hold on, isn’t there something wrong here? A man who has always wanted to a bride? Continue reading →

Australian Archbishop: equal in Christ but not in church

Posted on by
Reply

John Richardson, the Ugley Vicar, reports these words of Archbishop Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, who is a leading conservative in the worldwide Anglican Communion – the subject is women bishops:

You know that I am opposed to this innovation on scriptural grounds, believing as I do in the equality of men and women in Christ, but our complementarity in church and home.

Let’s look at the last part of this sentence. We have “equality … in Christ, but … complementarity in church and home” Hold on, does this mean that there is a contrast between “in Christ” and “in church”? When we are “in church”, or for that matter at home, are we no longer “in Christ”? Are churches in Australia so non-Christian that they are not even to be considered “in Christ”?

I’m sure that the Archbishop does not really want to teach this. But without this his argument falls apart. If men and women are equal in Christ, logically that equality must apply to everything they do in Christ, which should certainly include everything that happens in church, and in a Christian home. But if they are denied equality in church, then logically either the church is not in Christ or they are being denied the equality in Christ which is being preached.

The Archbishop continues:

I believe that the way that God has ordered our relationships is demonstrably for the best.

But the way he seems to think that God has ordered our relationships cannot be the real way if it is self-contradictory as I have argued.

Provinces, dioceses and parishes: relics of mediaeval Christendom which must go

Posted on by
5

Diocletian (reigned 284-305) was the last major non-Christian Roman emperor and the last great persecutor of the church in ancient times. Ironically, it was also him who divided up the Roman Empire into new administrative units called “dioceses“. As the Empire became Christianised, and then its administrative structures crumbled under the pressure of barbarian invasions, the bishops of the Catholic church became the only effective local authorities, and gradually dioceses became the areas within which a bishop had authority over all the churches. These dioceses became subdivided into parishes, which were generally the geographical areas associated with an individual church building and priest. Although under late Roman administration a province was a subdivision of a diocese, in the mediaeval western church the term “province” came into use for a higher level unit than a diocese, led by a metropolitan or archbishop.

This geographical division of the church into a hierarchy of different territorial units, although originating in late antiquity, fitted well with the feudal system of mediaeval Europe. Continue reading →

Archbishop Rowan should stay away from Lambeth, and resign

Posted on by
33

Only just over a week ago I reported here on a possible ray of hope for the Anglican Communion, that

The Archbishop of Canterbury is preparing to target individual bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism … by withdrawing their invitations to next year’s Lambeth Conference.

I didn’t hold out much chance for this initiative. But according to the latest news Archbishop Rowan has already closed it off. For he has put himself among the “bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism” by presiding at a ‘secret’ eucharist for the Clergy Consultation, a group of lesbian and gay clergy and their partners. It had been suggested that this service had been cancelled, but in fact it went ahead at a different venue.

If Archbishop Rowan is to be consistent with his own reported position, he should withdraw his own invitation to the Lambeth Conference, or announce that he will voluntarily stay away.

Continue reading →

Bishops without borders, including women

Posted on by
Reply

Anglican Mainstream reports these words of Bishop Don Harvey, leader of the Anglican Network in Canada which is breaking away from the official Anglican Church of Canada:

There is no reference in the Bible to a diocese, border, or boundary.  I have heard ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel’. We have lawyers and doctors and engineers without borders. We are launching bishops without borders.

But it is not just in Canada that bishops are soon going to be operating without borders. Last night I attended an open meeting the synod of my deanery (local group of Anglican churches) to discuss the issue of women bishops. Continue reading →

A Complementarian in Canada

Posted on by
Reply

I mentioned in my last post Rev David Short, Rector of of St John’s, Shaughnessy, Vancouver, and a leading member of the Anglican Network in Canada which is breaking away from the official Anglican Church of Canada. He came to Vancouver from Australia, the conservative Sydney diocese. His church is, I am told, the largest Anglican congregation in Canada, and its financial contribution, expected to be 10% of the parish income, will no doubt be important to the Network.

A reader has pointed out to me that Short holds a complementarian position and, contrary to the rules of the Anglican Church of Canada, opposes the ordination of women. This has also been mentioned in comments here, and looks like being a tricky issue for the Network. As evidence for this, I was sent a link to some of Short’s sermons, with a recommendation of the (29 minute) sermon Prime Rib on Genesis 2:18-25, from 19th October 2006, which I listened to and made a few notes on.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised by this sermon. Yes, Short is complementarian, but this is the relatively acceptable face of complementarianism. Continue reading →

Packer on leaving the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
11

Dr JI Packer has given an interesting talk, entitled Global Realignment: Who We Are and Where We Stand: A Theological Perspective, to the national conference of the Anglican Network in Canada. See Packer’s outline of his talk (PDF); Chris Sugden’s report of this talk from which my quotes are taken (it is unclear whether this is an official transcript or Sugden’s notes – he was at the conference); a blogger’s incomplete notes. The “theological perspective” is in fact a defence of this Network’s decision to leave the Anglican Church of Canada and affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (of South America).

As Packer says in his talk, he is not one to quit lightly. Continue reading →

In the Church of England, one rule for gays and another for "straights"?

Posted on by
Reply

From the BBC website:

Affair vicar has ‘mark of Cain’

A vicar has been banned from office for four years after having an affair with a married mother of four children.

…

However, a Church of England tribunal at Leeds Crown Court accepted the 2004 relationship was not sexual.

I am glad that firm action is taken in cases like this. But I wonder, would this have been handled similarly, with a court case and a ban from office, if this vicar had had an affair with a married father of four children? How many clergy are in fact living in gay and lesbian relationships, outside marriage, to which their bishops are turning a blind eye? Could the Church of England have one set of rules for heterosexual extra-marital relationships, even when they are “not sexual”, and another one for homosexual ones? Well, if similar action is ever taken against clergy in clandestine gay or lesbian relationships, they can hardly claim that they have been discriminated against.